What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[TemplarKormac]

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

You're being naive. With all due respect.

Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.

And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition. A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used. To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.

The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.

There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.

Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed. Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.

The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.

Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life? Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.

They're not gaming anything, dope They still need to qualify for asylum or they're deported. They are in custody and will be processed.

 

[HappyJoy]

Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.

You don't have the right to lecture anyone on morals when you let the decisions of parents who send their children on dangerous journeys alone to pass without so much as a whimper on your part. No. Willfully exposing a child to danger is perhaps the most immoral thing one can think of.

A couple of things here.

For starters most of us are referring to families traveling together seeking asylum and then being separated. Or at least that is what my posts are addressing.

However, when it comes to kids leaving separately there are probably a lot of reasons. Like the kid leaves on their own, the family maybe can only afford to send their kids and they feel the journey is safer than if the child stayed. Now, it could be that some of those unaccompanied minors are unwanted, my solution would be to take them in and help them. Where as you would do what? Send them back to the dangers they escaped from? Probably would, so don't lecture me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".

Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.

FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.

How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.

You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims? Seriously?

I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.

It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.

And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.

You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.

A point isn't valid just because you say it is.

 

[bodecea]

Mlll.

No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.

You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.

I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.

Who's rights were violated?

Seriously?

The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).

I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.

Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.

What rights are they violating?

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

It isn't the Dems' responsibility? Excuse me, who makes the laws in this country? That'd be Congress, right? Some members of which are Dems? So wouldn't that mean that making laws to correct a situation they don't like IS their responsibility? Otherwise, what the fuck are we paying them for? I myself don't consider "viewing with alarm" and grandstanding in front of the cameras to be a valuable public service I'm willing to pay my tax money for.

At what point do you go from, "This is wrong! This is horrible! Quick, everyone hate Trump!" to calling for something that is actually productive and meaningful to solving the alleged problem, such as . . . just off the top of my head here . . . a law that changes it?! 'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.

Who controls both Houses of Congress? Who has the Chair of all the Committees?

 

[Coyote]

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

You're being naive. With all due respect.

Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?

What is "his kind"?

He is the only one who killed her. Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?

 

[HappyJoy]

How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.

You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims? Seriously?

I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.

It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.

And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.

You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.

A point isn't valid just because you say it is.

You're right and I explained why it's valid in another post, maybe try reading it.

 

[bodecea]

How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?

Unnecessary? Why is it unnecessary?"

If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old. If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?

These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.

You heard it from the trumpanzees...they now have the expectation that the children of burglars will be put in cages.

 

[bodecea]

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

You're being naive. With all due respect.

Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?

What about his kind>>>‘I love you all and I’m sorry I failed you.’ Father who killed his 3 kids breaks down

 

[Coyote]

Mlll.

No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.

You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.

I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.

Who's rights were violated?

Seriously?

The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).

I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.

Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.

What rights are they violating?

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

It isn't the Dems' responsibility? Excuse me, who makes the laws in this country? That'd be Congress, right? Some members of which are Dems? So wouldn't that mean that making laws to correct a situation they don't like IS their responsibility? Otherwise, what the fuck are we paying them for? I myself don't consider "viewing with alarm" and grandstanding in front of the cameras to be a valuable public service I'm willing to pay my tax money for.

At what point do you go from, "This is wrong! This is horrible! Quick, everyone hate Trump!" to calling for something that is actually productive and meaningful to solving the alleged problem, such as . . . just off the top of my head here . . . a law that changes it?! 'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.

Most of your blather is just that. Blather.

When did this policy come into effect?
Who formulated it?
Who implemented it?

Why don't you Trumpets FOR ONCE grow up and tske responsibility for your crappy policies instead of blaming every one but....yourselves.

 

[HappyJoy]

How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?

Unnecessary? Why is it unnecessary?"

If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old. If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?

These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.

You heard it from the trumpanzees...they now have the expectation that the children of burglars will be put in cages.

Yeah, I don't think they realize what they are asking for. I guess according to Mike that 2 year old gets locked up too, just have to make sure it's not with their parents. Seems extraordinarily cruel but I guess this is Trump's America.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.

You don't have the right to lecture anyone on morals when you let the decisions of parents who send their children on dangerous journeys alone to pass without so much as a whimper on your part. No. Willfully exposing a child to danger is perhaps the most immoral thing one can think of.

A couple of things here.

For starters most of us are referring to families traveling together seeking asylum and then being separated. Or at least that is what my posts are addressing.

However, when it comes to kids leaving separately there are probably a lot of reasons. Like the kid leaves on their own, the family maybe can only afford to send their kids and they feel the journey is safer than if the child stayed. Now, it could be that some of those unaccompanied minors are unwanted, my solution would be to take them in and help them. Where as you would do what? Send them back to the dangers they escaped from? Probably would, so don't lecture me.

Always an excuse, isn't there?

Hey, here's an idea, Joy, open up your house and home, take in as many of these children as your heart desires. Then you can lecture the rest of us about morality. Until we give these children refuge from that danger, they will remain in danger. That danger, Joy, is not of our making. They were exposed to that danger by their parents.

Not even in my most desperate hour would I abandon my child to the dangers of the world. My guidance and protection would be their greatest weapon. But you? Oh, it is an act of "compassion" to do something so despicable.

 

[Coyote]

Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.

And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition. A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used. To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.

The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.

There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.

Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed. Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.

The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.

Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life? Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.

They're not gaming anything, dope They still need to qualify for asylum or they're deported. They are in custody and will be processed.

And MOST requests for asylum are rejected.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.

From march of 17. Video in link.

"Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"

Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video

No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention. There is a way to deal with this, but it runs through Congress, not the President.

I don't give a tin shit what stupid stuff Kelly spewed out. People are always saying dumb things, and unlike you, I don't focus my whole life around people and personalities and who-said-what. Every single bit of my argument is based on the actual laws, and you have yet to dispute a one of them.

Dispute my points, or admit defeat. Trying to move the goalposts is the same as admitting defeat.

No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.

That's not what I mean at all and I've told you that several times now, dope.

Obviously the process for determining eligibility for asylum is neither unresricted nor unregulated.

I've disputed and debunked your argument each time.

It is their policy to separate families as a deterrent. Period.
If you won't take the word of the then DHS secretary, then you're truly lost.

I don't give a rat's ass what you TELL me you want. You have obviously mistaken yourself for someone I respect or trust. I'm following the logic chain; you'd have to be able to think to comprehend that.

Saying, "No, no, no, that's not true!" is not "disputing" anything. You have yet to actually disprove a damned thing I've said. Again, the fact that you SAY something is true is worth less than a fart in a wind tunnel to me.

It is their policy to prosecute all criminals as criminals. Period.

If you won't take historical record as fact, then you're truly stupid . . . which we've already established.

Can you "dispute" that the President is charged by the Constitution with enforcing the laws? Can you dispute that the President has zero legal power to make or change laws? Can you dispute that laws are passed by Congress, and that Congress could pass a law today changing this whole situation, but hasn't? (Hint: if you're going to tackle the actual facts on this, you're gonna have to FINALLY read the Constitution.)

Can you "dispute" that the Flores Settlement made it legally binding on the federal government to release unaccompanied minors after no more than 20 days LONG before Trump became President? Can you dispute that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Flores Settlement had to be applied to accompanied minors as well, ALSO long before Trump became President? Can you dispute that it was the ACLU and other leftist groups who argued for both of those decisions because family detention was "inhumane"? And can you dispute that the Obama administration responded to those legal restrictions with "catch-and-release"?

'Cause I can document every damned thing I just said. All Trump has done is prosecute criminals for their crimes, instead of blowing them off. If all you've got is "Well, someone said something dumb, so that erases ALL the history!" then we're done here, and you can go find someone else to bother.

Lol.
I've dismantled your talking points repeatedly. Hell, I even have you agreeing it's their policy now.

The flores settlement is only valid because Trump chose to prosecute the parents, dope.
But that was the plan all along. To make the process so horrible that no one would attempt it.

No one is " blown off", dope. They are in custody and will be processed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

You're being naive. With all due respect.

Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?

What about his kind>>>‘I love you all and I’m sorry I failed you.’ Father who killed his 3 kids breaks down

That "kind" is what I call a non sequitur.

Next.

 

[koshergrl]

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!

That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't

I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).

In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again. If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out.

If they are at our border, they aren't in Guatemala.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims? Seriously?

I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.

It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.

And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.

You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.

A point isn't valid just because you say it is.

You're right and I explained why it's valid in another post, maybe try reading it.

I think I'll repeat myself. Saying it's "valid" in one word or many words does not make your point valid.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.

Think about that

Child traffickers and victims posing as families are easily identified by law enforcement when apprehended. Victims almost universally show relief when questioned by law enforcement. The most common methods of transporting victims is as cargo in trucks and boats, not walking across the desert.

Yes and our very savvy and well experienced professionals are no doubt very adept at sorting through these claims.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

You're being naive. With all due respect.

Do you reeeeeallly think that he is the only one of his kind to cross the border illegally?

What is "his kind"?

He is the only one who killed her. Not all other illegal immigrants. Him. No one else violate her rights did they?

Don't be dense.

There are many other illegal immigrants out there just like him. They were criminals in their own country, and they willingly continue that pattern here. That puts my right to reasonable safety at risk.

 

[koshergrl]

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:

Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart

But hey, this was Trump's fault.

Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.

Victims of human traffickers.

They removed them from the people victimizing them. Who are not their parents. Who are not their *families*.

And the MS13 who show up to *pick them up* are not their *family* either, no matter how hard Hillary tries to convince retards like you that they are.