What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Coyote]

A person showing up at a border crossing and seeking assylum is not an illegal alien.

Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
It's often the only engish they know.
Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".

Liar.

Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.

Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.

Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.

There is nothing new here.

Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.

I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.

Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News

"Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."

Still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it was okay in the barry era.

It wasnt done as a matter of policy inless there was reason to believe the adults were not actually the parents.

 

[Pop23]

That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.

Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.

You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.

In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.

It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.

 

[Coyote]

That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.

Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.

You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.

In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.

It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.

Yes, they did. But it is the child being punished for it. It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy? It is those kids.

 

[Pop23]

That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.

Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.

You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.

In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.

It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.

Yes, they did. But it is the child being punished for it. It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy? It is those kids.

The child would be suffering from THEIR PARENTS decision. No different when a child is separated from their parents thousands of times a month because their parent broke a law.

As I said before

Nothing new here.

 

[protectionist]

Check out this sweet new policy.

New Analysis Reveals Increase in Prosecution of Asylum Seekers Under Trump Admin

This completely assinine "Analysis" has more holes in it than a pasta strainer. The Human Rights First group is really pouring it on here in this, but it's all pile of hogwash.

1. Making the criminal prosecution of immigration offenses a “high priority” is a good thing, is what voters elected Trump to do, and he's doing it.

2. If it's true that "prosecutions for immigration offenses already made up more than half of all federal prosecutions nationwide", SO WHAT ? All that means is that immigration crime is a massive entity, and must be dealt with massively. Again, good work, Mr President.

3. The "Analysis" says >> "U.S. treaty obligations that prohibit the penalization of refugees for illegal entry" Nothing prohibits the USA from defending itself from the invasion of illegal aliens, and no one is a "refugee" until that has been ascertained by an immigration court, which hasn't happened when illegals illegally cross the border. Also, treaty "obligations" do not trump US law. And that law is to protect the US, not countries dumping their unwanteds on us.

4. The "Analysis says >> "the increase in prosecutions increases the likelihood that individuals coming to the United States to seek asylum—a legal act—are penalized, detained in federal prisons" Well, actually, no it does not. There is no causation connection there.

5.

The "Analysis" says >> "individuals coming to the United States to seek asylum—a legal act—are penalized, detained in federal prisons, and in some cases deported without a chance to have their asylum claims heard" ​

BUT, they don't offer a shred of evidence to support that, or present a single case where that might have happened.

6. The "Analysis" presents statistics and analysis that demonstrate the skyrocketing rate of prosecution for "illegal entry" and "illegal reentry” Well, GOOD! That simply shows that the Trump admin is doing it's job, as promised, and gives more power to the case for re-election in 2020.

7. It says >>> "In June 2017, a Border Patrol representative told a Human Rights First researcher that the agency has moved to implement a “zero-tolerance” policy, meaning that everyone apprehended, with few exceptions (e.g., minors, family units), will be prosecuted—including asylum seekers. "

That's called getting the job done. (but I don't think they're prosecuting minors.) Lots of stretching going on in this so=called (totally biased) "analysis".

 

[protectionist]

Yes, they did. But it is the child being punished for it. It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy? It is those kids.

So quickly make a verdict, join them up. If guilty, deport them all. Otherwise, they stay.......but Congress needs to revisit our asylum policy. Are we being the world's dumping ground ?

 

[protectionist]

I in no way support illegal immigration.
They should be processed and moved out as quickly as possible.

My beef is screwing with the asylum system.
This is established law and these people deserve due process. Anything less is not the American way. It is the govts job to manage the border not circumvent their own laws. If they are denied, deport them immediately.

Did anybody say their asylum claims should not be heard ? Which is a separate issue from their violation of EWI.

 

[protectionist]

Are you daft?
San Ysidro border crossing, fool. They walked up to the border and applied. How is that different than applying at a US embassy or consulate?

Not how it should be done. If they aren't legal to cross the border, they should be applying from home, Then IF/whenever they get it granted, THEN they should start traveling.

And a "significant possibility" is fool talk. They either are in illegal status, or legalized by an immigration court JUDGE.

 

[protectionist]

You can have that opinion but it's not for you or me to decide. There is a system in place to do that. Do you know that those who are denied are deported?

Do you see a reason why they would/should NOT be deported ?

 

[protectionist]

No, they're being locked up for Trump's policy and denied due process.

Now, are YOU daff ?​

The "policy", as you call it, is simply >> because they crossed the border ILLEGALLY - violation of US Code 8, Section 1325, just as I said. The "policy" is the LAW.

 

[protectionist]

That was my answer.

No, it's NOT an answer, because it wasn't the question, Mr Dodge.

 

[kaz]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Parents lose their children when they commit crimes. No duh

 

[protectionist]

It's up to the discretion of the federal authorities how to enforce it. Favoring prosecution over due process is wrong. That is also the law. If their claim is valid then good to go. If not, buh bye.

And the "federal authorities" are the executive branch > Trump and Sessions and ICE. Nobody is favoring prosecution over due process. The "process" is, you cross the border illegally, you get arrested & locked up. If you have any kind of a claim, you make it at trial. If you lose, out you go.

But here's what should be >> The illegals let in at the border on asylum claims, should not have been admitted. If these criminals have a legal right to a hearing, bring a judge to the border, and hold the hearing right there. If they can make a case, put them on a lie detector right then and there in the courtroom on the border. Do not admit any more criminal illegals. Zero. No exceptions.

PS - On both sides of the fence, they were waving THEIR Countrys' flags to get into the US, rather than the American flag ......obviously evidencing these aren't Asylum seekers in any sense of the word.

 

[protectionist]

Where they wete before Sessions decrated this policy.

Before Sessions and Trump started ENFORCING THE LAW, both parents and kids were being allowed to skate, via "catch & release". Illegal aliens being allowed to invade our country in violation of our immigration law.

It doesn't surprise me that a liberal would favor that, with more VOTES for Democrats coming from it. Par for the course.

 

[kaz]

That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.

Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.

You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.

In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.

It is still the parents decision. They made the choice, not me.

Yes, they did. But it is the child being punished for it. It can be the parents fault but who is suffering from OUR policy? It is those kids.

So we dont punish criminals who have kids? That's seriously stupid

 

[Seawytch]

Then it clearly is not so terrible to you. It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.

No, it is a risk a bad parent takes trying illegally enter.
You do know other countries do the same? In fact, we have much weaker immigration policies than most.

What other countries separate parents from children for months?

 

[Seawytch]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Parents lose their children when they commit crimes. No duh

Seeking asylum isn't a crime.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.

Thanks for playing.

The Trump admin is the only one using children as tools, dope. That's the point.
They're using the threat of seperation as a deterrent.

Seems like a logical deterrent, so unless the parent is so negligent as to knowingly bring a child across the border when they know they will be separated, then it is that parents choice to do so. That is exactly what a deterrent is.

Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.

So whats your solution?

Whst we were doing previously in regards to detaining families with children.

The same.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Illegals are being coached on how to ask for asylum at the border.
It's often the only engish they know.
Hilarious to see 'young men' with MS13 tats all over their bodies pleading to be let into the US! And it's happenijg every day."I used to be in MS13 but now I want to attend MIT on a full scholarship".

Liar.

Seeking asylum is a legal process. The admin is charging applicants as illegal crossers and separating families as a deterrent to future applicants. That is a policy move and not the law.

Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.

Forcing a child to break the law will typically result in separation of the parent from the child. It deters those that would force a child into criminal activities.

There is nothing new here.

Asylum seekers....the new illegal immigrant.

I wonder what congress thinks of this policy.

Rep. Mark Meadows: Separation of families at border a "horrible law," should be changed - CBS News

"Here's one of the interesting things, as we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem. This came out just the other day, and I said, 'I can't imagine that it's the law that you have to separate these individuals,'" Meadows told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of Mr. Trump's most influential allies on Capitol Hill.
He added, "Now, obviously human trafficking is a big deal. You know, how do you know that they're really the parents in a family unit? So we would have to address that, but I think conservatives and moderates, Democrats and Republicans all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy, and it's something we need to address and will address."

Still haven't gotten an explanation as to why it was okay in the barry era.

It wasnt done as a matter of policy inless there was reason to believe the adults were not actually the parents.

So are you telling me they housed/held family's in single unit cells?

 

[Norman]

Then it clearly is not so terrible to you. It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.

No, it is a risk a bad parent takes trying illegally enter.
You do know other countries do the same? In fact, we have much weaker immigration policies than most.

What other countries separate parents from children for months?

What other country has so many illegals that want to enter?

But okay, you win.

Now build that wall and make sure NO ONE enters this country illegally. Then no separations are required. Not quite what had in mind? Indeed your plan was to let everyone in because somehow that makes sense, because of the separations.