Lawmakers in Florida are raising alarm over documents suggesting immigrant children and pregnant women could be detained at ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’

A draft operational plan obtained by the Miami Herald suggests minors could indeed be transported to the controversial site in the Everglades. The 35-page undated document details protocols to “separate minors from unrelated adults” and to provide “snacks and water” to minors, pregnant women and detainees with medical conditions during transport.

“The State of Florida is planning to send pregnant women and children to the ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention camp,” wrote State Senator Carlos Guillermo Smith on social media. “This is totally un-American. We cannot be silent.”

  • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    You’re either misunderstanding me or I’m not being clear enough, but I didn’t say any of that lol. I’m gonna go step by step here and try to be really clear, but if I’m misunderstanding anything please let me know.

    All people should be spared inhuman behaviour.

    Yeah, I agree with you, and I don’t think I’ve suggested anything to the contrary. I’ve just said that certain vulnerable groups sometimes require more protection than men. Because they’re more vulnerable than men.

    I’m sorry but “i don’t like equality” feels like nonsense to me.

    It feels like nonsense to me too, probably because I didn’t say that either. But what it seems like you’re suggesting is to ignore the circumstantial differences between groups, even when one group is more vulnerable than another, in the name of treating everyone the same, i.e, “equality”. But I take issue with that, because that sort of thinking leads to inequal outcomes. As in, if a vulnerable group is treated exactly the same as their less-vulnerable counterparts, the vulnerable group will experience more negative outcomes on average, thus experiencing inequality.

    Men should have every potection afforded to others.

    In general, yeah, absolutely, except in cases where a particular protection only applies to a group that excludes men. The same logic applies to every group. Maybe this is just semantics at this point, but I don’t see the point of affording a protection to a group that it doesn’t apply to. All that is sort of beside the point though, because at no point have I suggested that any one group have protections taken away, just that some vulnerable groups require more protection than others in order to experience equality.

    we should protect all people to the best of our ability.

    One hundred percent agree. In my view, we do that by trying to figure out what everyone needs as a baseline, identifying the more vulnerable groups by figuring out who that baseline doesn’t satisfy, and then figuring out what extra things those vulnerable groups need. That’s all I’m advocating for - protecting vulnerable groups by figuring out what extra protections they need, not taking protections away from less vulnerable groups.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I wouldn’t consider “not being sent to a death camp” to be an extra protection that only applies to specific groups of people, though