Panama all but made it clear that they don’t even want these migrants in the first place - why on earth would they then imprison them permanently on their soil at significant cost and potential political backlash now that they’re out of the US’s jurisdiction?
Like, it’s obviously possible that’s the case, but I can’t see a reason to do so that makes any sense.
Do they have a choice? Are alternatives mired in bureaucracy? Can we JAQ all day?
I’m commenting on specifically on your point of being “just a temporary” camp somehow excusing poor conditions. If I only put my dick in your ass temporarily, does that not infringe on your dignity as a person?
The conditions don’t seem all that poor for a temporary holding camp in Panama for people who will be leaving the country shortly, so as long as this doesn’t become a more permanent situation, I don’t think it’s infringing on anyone’s dignity, and I have no problem with it whatsoever.
This whole thing is infringing on dignity. Nothing about this is about dignity. There is nothing dignified in being treated as a prisoner, and they are not free to go.
I doubt they’re getting their needs met. In Trump 1, they tried to argue that they shouldn’t have to provide soap or lights that turn off at night in the detainment centers.
Also, take some time to critically examine your thoughts about national borders. Most people just want to live and work and mind their own business. We allow unfettered migration between the states and there’s no problem there; people move between states, find work, and mind their own business. That’s also true of the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, only we set up a bullshit system designed to provide an underclass of labor for exploitation, and now some folks are arguing in bad faith that they’re cleverly defending immigrants from exploitation by (checks notes) detaining and deporting them instead of attacking the bullshit exploitation system we created.
Panama doesn’t have the same animosity against migrants that I’m aware of, so I’m not sure why they’d do that. Plus, the article doesn’t mention any sort of treatment like that, so I don’t see a reason to assume it of Panama without some sort of evidence.
My thoughts about national borders are fully examined. All countries have the right to say who is and who is not allowed to be within their borders, and they also have the right to temporarily detain individuals who they don’t want within their borders until they can be repatriated, regardless of those individuals’ intentions or behaviors.
The way that illegal immigrants are exploited is also bullshit, of course, but it’s a false dichotomy to claim that sovereign nations therefore cannot decide who is or is not allowed to cross their borders.
I’m deeply skeptical of this whole “oh, they’re just innocent lil camps outside of our own borders and laws where the media can’t easily check, why are you suspicious lmao?” narrative.
I’m also of the belief that people should live and work where they please, and that national borders are the tools of oppressors.
I’m deeply skeptical of this whole “oh, they’re just innocent lil camps outside of our own borders and laws where the media can’t easily check, why are you suspicious lmao?” narrative.
This is a very fair and respectable position to take.
I’m also of the belief that people should live and work where they please, and that national borders are the tools of oppressors.
Here we will have to disagree (not that national borders can’t be tools of oppressors, but that they are inherently so). I’ve enjoyed our conversation - you’ve given me the benefit of the doubt here, unlike many other commenters, and I very much appreciate your good faith comments.
The article doesn’t address that, so I’d be speculating, but if I had to guess, I’d say either:
US authorities determined that Panama had some sort of culpability for the migrants entering the US - maybe they were lax in their policing of the Darien Gap, for example
or, also quite likely given how much of a petty dick Trump is:
Trump forced Panama specifically to take them as a show of power related to his threat to steal the Panama Canal.
That’s kind of tangential to the point I’m making. I’m trying to say that I don’t think these people can be legitimately returned. Making them another state’s problem is a way to make it out of sight, out of mind, and make it hard for people to protest. Last time, under Trump 1, there was a lot of (rightful) fuss about the detainment camps and how the Trump administration argued that they shouldn’t be required to provide blankets, soap, and lights that turn off at night. No need to be too concerned with any of those details if it’s happening half a world away, see?
I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimately returned”? Do you mean that Panama can’t be sure of their place of origin?
I fully agree that the detainment camps that Trump inherited from Obama were inhumane, but in my opinion a lot of that was due to the unreasonably long amount of time people were forced to spend in them. Most of those conditions (obviously not refusing to provide soap, turn the lights off, etc. - that was just intentional cruelty) are reasonable for a few weeks or so, as a temporary stop-gap, but after months of detainment it definitely becomes inhumane.
We don’t have any evidence that the Panamanian camps are doing any of those things though, or why Panama would want to treat them like that.
These kinds of operations always end up scooping up actual US citizens. That’s what happens when you break a few eggs to make an omelette.
The countries of origin might either not be known (in the case of someone in the country since they were a small child) or might not recognize them as a citizen for a variety of reasons, including paperwork cock-ups.
The country of origin might refuse to repatriate the person, because you can’t just dump a shitload of people on a poor country all at once and expect no consequences. It takes time to ramp up supply chains in response to demand. And before you say “Ah Ha! So you ARE against immigration!” No, immigration has largely been at a pace that the US could easily absorb, especially if we had sensible policies around how we build cities. If we actually do deport 11 million people in the first year, there’s going to be consequences for that. You don’t just take 11 million people worth of demand and economic production out of an economy virtually overnight and not have consequences. This whole thing is honestly like when a cartoon character sticks a shotgun in a hole and ends up blowing their own ass off. That’s us right now.
As for the camps being an improvement, I’m sure it’s more convenient for the Trump administration, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You should always, always have a healthy doubt of the government.
These kinds of operations always end up scooping up actual US citizens. That’s what happens when you break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Sure, but again, that’s a US problem and not really a Panamanian one that I can tell. Also, as I mentioned in my other comment, it’s a false dichotomy to argue that the way US enforces immigration is bad, so therefore no immigration enforcement can be allowed at all.
The countries of origin might either not be known (in the case of someone in the country since they were a small child) or might not recognize them as a citizen for a variety of reasons, including paperwork cock-ups.
If that proves to be the case, then yes, Panama will have the responsibility to find a humane resolution to the situation. That has very little bearing on the immediate situation described by the article though.
It seems that in your responses here you’re often conflating a lot of your opinions about immigration policy in general with the specifics of the situation at hand, which is what I’m specifically talking about. I’m happy to discuss immigration more generally, as I did in my other comment, but again, I don’t think many of the points you’ve made so far are very relevant.
The country of origin might refuse to repatriate the person, because you can’t just dump a shitload of people on a poor country all at once and expect no consequences.
The country has responsibility for their citizens anyway though. Refusal to repatriate is then on that country, not on Panama or the US. If that country is so concerned about its ability to repatriate its citizens, it should do a better job of making sure they’re not placed in that position.
This whole thing is honestly like when a cartoon character sticks a shotgun in a hole and ends up blowing their own ass off. That’s us right now.
Maybe so, but it’s the US’s right to make that determination, and it’s a right that (with all of the specific caveats of we’re doing a horrible job of it and most people are interested in it for the cruelty, etc.) I fundamentally support.
You should always, always have a healthy doubt of the government.
This is always a true and refreshing statement to hear, and trust me, I have no inherent faith in the Panamanian government in general. I just see no reason to assume all of these horrible things when a) there’s no evidence that that’s the case and b) just because some idiotic talking head is trying to emotionally manipulate me into doing so.
Okay, now, let’s pull back and frame everything you just said in the context of what I asked earlier:
If they CAN go anywhere else, why are they being held in Panama? Those people were here, they’re our problem, we’re the ones detaining them under our laws, so it’s our responsibility to treat them humanely. It’s decidedly not Panama’s problem, and I somehow doubt Panama is doing this without some arm twisting on our part. So, even if Panama decides “ah, well, fuck it, just kill em I guess”, that’s still on us.
So, even Panama decides “ah, well, fuck it, just kill em I guess”, that’s still on us.
I do agree with this. We do have some culpability in the way they are treated until they reach their home countries.
I think I’m still missing your point about “if they CAN go anywhere else, why are they being held in Panama?” though. I think it’s a show of force on Trump’s part, exercising his leverage over Panama from the threat of stealing the canal. I don’t think Trump cares about what happens to the migrants once they’re in Panama, so I don’t really see a reason for Panama to purposefully mistreat them, when they don’t seem to have the incentives to do so that the US does.
If I’m still missing something (other than your healthy inherent distrust of governments, including Panama’s), definitely do let me know.
Panama all but made it clear that they don’t even want these migrants in the first place - why on earth would they then imprison them permanently on their soil at significant cost and potential political backlash now that they’re out of the US’s jurisdiction?
Like, it’s obviously possible that’s the case, but I can’t see a reason to do so that makes any sense.
Do they have a choice? Are alternatives mired in bureaucracy? Can we JAQ all day?
I’m commenting on specifically on your point of being “just a temporary” camp somehow excusing poor conditions. If I only put my dick in your ass temporarily, does that not infringe on your dignity as a person?
The conditions don’t seem all that poor for a temporary holding camp in Panama for people who will be leaving the country shortly, so as long as this doesn’t become a more permanent situation, I don’t think it’s infringing on anyone’s dignity, and I have no problem with it whatsoever.
This whole thing is infringing on dignity. Nothing about this is about dignity. There is nothing dignified in being treated as a prisoner, and they are not free to go.
Removed by mod
I doubt they’re getting their needs met. In Trump 1, they tried to argue that they shouldn’t have to provide soap or lights that turn off at night in the detainment centers.
Also, take some time to critically examine your thoughts about national borders. Most people just want to live and work and mind their own business. We allow unfettered migration between the states and there’s no problem there; people move between states, find work, and mind their own business. That’s also true of the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, only we set up a bullshit system designed to provide an underclass of labor for exploitation, and now some folks are arguing in bad faith that they’re cleverly defending immigrants from exploitation by (checks notes) detaining and deporting them instead of attacking the bullshit exploitation system we created.
Panama doesn’t have the same animosity against migrants that I’m aware of, so I’m not sure why they’d do that. Plus, the article doesn’t mention any sort of treatment like that, so I don’t see a reason to assume it of Panama without some sort of evidence.
My thoughts about national borders are fully examined. All countries have the right to say who is and who is not allowed to be within their borders, and they also have the right to temporarily detain individuals who they don’t want within their borders until they can be repatriated, regardless of those individuals’ intentions or behaviors.
The way that illegal immigrants are exploited is also bullshit, of course, but it’s a false dichotomy to claim that sovereign nations therefore cannot decide who is or is not allowed to cross their borders.
Suffice it to say:
I’m deeply skeptical of this whole “oh, they’re just innocent lil camps outside of our own borders and laws where the media can’t easily check, why are you suspicious lmao?” narrative.
I’m also of the belief that people should live and work where they please, and that national borders are the tools of oppressors.
This is a very fair and respectable position to take.
Here we will have to disagree (not that national borders can’t be tools of oppressors, but that they are inherently so). I’ve enjoyed our conversation - you’ve given me the benefit of the doubt here, unlike many other commenters, and I very much appreciate your good faith comments.
Alright, I’m putting my dick in your ass. It’s not that bad for a temporary situation.
I’m gentle, I don’t think it would infringe on your dignity, and I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Please go shower.
You would do well as a talking head on a Twitter-like.
You’re just jealous, I’m an analrapist and people like me better than you
Time for ANUSTART
Why is panama taking them in the first place if there was somewhere else for them to go?
The article doesn’t address that, so I’d be speculating, but if I had to guess, I’d say either:
or, also quite likely given how much of a petty dick Trump is:
That’s kind of tangential to the point I’m making. I’m trying to say that I don’t think these people can be legitimately returned. Making them another state’s problem is a way to make it out of sight, out of mind, and make it hard for people to protest. Last time, under Trump 1, there was a lot of (rightful) fuss about the detainment camps and how the Trump administration argued that they shouldn’t be required to provide blankets, soap, and lights that turn off at night. No need to be too concerned with any of those details if it’s happening half a world away, see?
I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimately returned”? Do you mean that Panama can’t be sure of their place of origin?
I fully agree that the detainment camps that Trump inherited from Obama were inhumane, but in my opinion a lot of that was due to the unreasonably long amount of time people were forced to spend in them. Most of those conditions (obviously not refusing to provide soap, turn the lights off, etc. - that was just intentional cruelty) are reasonable for a few weeks or so, as a temporary stop-gap, but after months of detainment it definitely becomes inhumane.
We don’t have any evidence that the Panamanian camps are doing any of those things though, or why Panama would want to treat them like that.
If anything, this seems like an improvement.
I mean that:
These kinds of operations always end up scooping up actual US citizens. That’s what happens when you break a few eggs to make an omelette.
The countries of origin might either not be known (in the case of someone in the country since they were a small child) or might not recognize them as a citizen for a variety of reasons, including paperwork cock-ups.
The country of origin might refuse to repatriate the person, because you can’t just dump a shitload of people on a poor country all at once and expect no consequences. It takes time to ramp up supply chains in response to demand. And before you say “Ah Ha! So you ARE against immigration!” No, immigration has largely been at a pace that the US could easily absorb, especially if we had sensible policies around how we build cities. If we actually do deport 11 million people in the first year, there’s going to be consequences for that. You don’t just take 11 million people worth of demand and economic production out of an economy virtually overnight and not have consequences. This whole thing is honestly like when a cartoon character sticks a shotgun in a hole and ends up blowing their own ass off. That’s us right now.
As for the camps being an improvement, I’m sure it’s more convenient for the Trump administration, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You should always, always have a healthy doubt of the government.
Sure, but again, that’s a US problem and not really a Panamanian one that I can tell. Also, as I mentioned in my other comment, it’s a false dichotomy to argue that the way US enforces immigration is bad, so therefore no immigration enforcement can be allowed at all.
If that proves to be the case, then yes, Panama will have the responsibility to find a humane resolution to the situation. That has very little bearing on the immediate situation described by the article though.
It seems that in your responses here you’re often conflating a lot of your opinions about immigration policy in general with the specifics of the situation at hand, which is what I’m specifically talking about. I’m happy to discuss immigration more generally, as I did in my other comment, but again, I don’t think many of the points you’ve made so far are very relevant.
The country has responsibility for their citizens anyway though. Refusal to repatriate is then on that country, not on Panama or the US. If that country is so concerned about its ability to repatriate its citizens, it should do a better job of making sure they’re not placed in that position.
Maybe so, but it’s the US’s right to make that determination, and it’s a right that (with all of the specific caveats of we’re doing a horrible job of it and most people are interested in it for the cruelty, etc.) I fundamentally support.
This is always a true and refreshing statement to hear, and trust me, I have no inherent faith in the Panamanian government in general. I just see no reason to assume all of these horrible things when a) there’s no evidence that that’s the case and b) just because some idiotic talking head is trying to emotionally manipulate me into doing so.
Okay, now, let’s pull back and frame everything you just said in the context of what I asked earlier:
If they CAN go anywhere else, why are they being held in Panama? Those people were here, they’re our problem, we’re the ones detaining them under our laws, so it’s our responsibility to treat them humanely. It’s decidedly not Panama’s problem, and I somehow doubt Panama is doing this without some arm twisting on our part. So, even if Panama decides “ah, well, fuck it, just kill em I guess”, that’s still on us.
I do agree with this. We do have some culpability in the way they are treated until they reach their home countries.
I think I’m still missing your point about “if they CAN go anywhere else, why are they being held in Panama?” though. I think it’s a show of force on Trump’s part, exercising his leverage over Panama from the threat of stealing the canal. I don’t think Trump cares about what happens to the migrants once they’re in Panama, so I don’t really see a reason for Panama to purposefully mistreat them, when they don’t seem to have the incentives to do so that the US does.
If I’m still missing something (other than your healthy inherent distrust of governments, including Panama’s), definitely do let me know.
Hehe, permanently.
There’s an easy way to reduce the number of prisoners and make it temporary once the camp becomes too expensive.