What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Cecilie1200]

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.​

/——/ Libtards seething with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together

We shall see whether or not I approve after the document has been drafted. So long as he stays within all the limits imposed by our actual laws, we're good. I am encouraged that he appears to be working with Kirstjen Nielsen, who seems to be quite levelheaded and sensible on the subject, and with members of Congress, whose job it ACTUALLY is to fix this long-term. I am also encouraged that he stated, "I'll be doing something that's somewhat pre-emptive and ultimately will be matched by legislation I'm sure." I don't necessarily have a lot of faith and trust in Trump as a rule, but for the time being, he seems to be within my parameters of acceptability.

 

[Flopper]

OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point. He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.

It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...

Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).

Of course you consider it a minor crime. You want it to happen.

No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.

The more Democrat voters the better. You want to award prizes for coming here illegally. I mean literal prizes. Welfare, free education, free medical care. We'll house Mexico's prison population for them. It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!

No, none of this is true.

Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.

Right, and that's been the Republican position. Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal. How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?

And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences? Of course not

Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.

Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and border security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern border, 700,000 in 2006. In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the border and ICE estimates that they're stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.

This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents, even by using expedited deportation, trial in criminal court, and separating families. It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.

At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder. This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally. It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).

Of course you consider it a minor crime. You want it to happen.

No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.

The more Democrat voters the better. You want to award prizes for coming here illegally. I mean literal prizes. Welfare, free education, free medical care. We'll house Mexico's prison population for them. It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!

No, none of this is true.

Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.

Right, and that's been the Republican position. Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal. How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?

And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences? Of course not

Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.

Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006. In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.

This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents. It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.

At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder. This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally. It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.

Okay, dude, seriously. I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly? How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?

A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries. A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services. Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word. English is, presumably, your mother tongue. PLEASE learn to communicate in it.

 

[AZGAL]

Should asylum seekers heading to the U.S. stay in Mexico?
...
Asylum seekers are not obligated to ask for protection in the first country they enter that is not their own, said immigration attorney Tammy Lin.

“Many countries don’t have a system in place and don’t accept asylum seekers,” Lin said. “Most of the places — if we’re just talking Central Americans — that they’re coming up to don’t have a good system set up, and even if they did go that way, they hardly ever approve anyone.”

She has had clients from the Middle East who lived for periods of time in Jordan or Lebanon before seeking asylum in the U.S. They were able to request asylum here because they were never offered permanent status in those countries.

Canada is the only country that the U.S. has an agreement with regarding “safe third country” designation...


Lin said that having an agreement with Mexico would mean expecting Mexico to have an infrastructure similar enough to the U.S. to process asylum seekers.

“Canada is a first-world country,” Lin said. “It’s not much different from the U.S. They have a good mechanism in place, and they’ve had a system in place for asylum seekers for so long. To require Mexico to do it, they’d have to build it up.”

In 2016, 8,788 people applied for asylum in Mexico, according to a Human Rights First report. Canada received 23,930 asylum applications that year, according to government data. Between asylum applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and asylum applications filed in immigration court, the U.S. received more than 180,000 asylum applications in fiscal 2016....

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.​

/——/ Libtards seething with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together

We shall see whether or not I approve after the document has been drafted. So long as he stays within all the limits imposed by our actual laws, we're good. I am encouraged that he appears to be working with Kirstjen Nielsen, who seems to be quite levelheaded and sensible on the subject, and with members of Congress, whose job it ACTUALLY is to fix this long-term. I am also encouraged that he stated, "I'll be doing something that's somewhat pre-emptive and ultimately will be matched by legislation I'm sure." I don't necessarily have a lot of faith and trust in Trump as a rule, but for the time being, he seems to be within my parameters of acceptability.

/----/ "We shall see whether or not I approve " Well the country is waiting with baited breath to see if YOU approve. Rest assure the Leftards need to keep this narrative open so any action by the President will be met with lawsuits and leftist Judges over rulings and might even include democRATs calling for Trump's impeachment for an EO violating a Congressional Bill that yesterday democRATs said didn't exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.​

/——/ Libtards seething with rage as they lose yet another talking point:
Trump says he's going to sign a 'preemptive' measure to keep migrant families together

We shall see whether or not I approve after the document has been drafted. So long as he stays within all the limits imposed by our actual laws, we're good. I am encouraged that he appears to be working with Kirstjen Nielsen, who seems to be quite levelheaded and sensible on the subject, and with members of Congress, whose job it ACTUALLY is to fix this long-term. I am also encouraged that he stated, "I'll be doing something that's somewhat pre-emptive and ultimately will be matched by legislation I'm sure." I don't necessarily have a lot of faith and trust in Trump as a rule, but for the time being, he seems to be within my parameters of acceptability.

/----/ "We shall see whether or not I approve " Well the country is waiting with baited breath to see if YOU approve. Rest assure the Leftards need to keep this narrative open so any action by the President will be met with lawsuits and leftist Judges over rulings and might even include democRATs calling for Trump's impeachment for an EO violating a Congressional Bill that yesterday democRATs said didn't exist.

The country SHOULD be waiting with baited breath to see if I approve, given that my approval is based on what the actual law is, and whether or not it's followed.

Why do I get the feeling that you read only the first line, and then kneejerked to "It MUST be an attack on Trump! It's a leftist! Aaaahhhhh! Return fire!!!!"?

I'm fairly certain that any resolution to this problem which is not a complete revocation of all border enforcement will be rejected by leftists, followed by an hysterically emotional attempt to force the administration to provide the aforementioned revocation of border enforcement.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?

The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?

Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.

Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?

But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats. So that doesn't interest the left

The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.

You were melting down about guatamala, not me. What is your plan?

Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.

We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.

I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

 

[AZGAL]

Migrating North, but to Mexico, Not the U.S.

By Kirk Semple
Feb. 12, 2017

• SALTILLO, Mexico — Wendy no longer worries that when her sons leave the apartment in the morning, they may never make it to school. Memories of the gangs that haunted their lives in Honduras are slowly receding into the past.
  
  The family fled its home last year after gang members tried to recruit the boys, threatening them with death if they did not join. They received asylum in Mexico, making them among the country’s newest residents.
  
  “It’s not easy — as you can imagine — starting again,” Wendy said in an interview in this small city in northeastern Mexico, where the family decided to settle. “But we are better here because we are safer.”
  
  The United States has long been the dream destination for many Latin American migrants, whether fleeing poverty, political unrest, natural disaster or violence. But now a growing number of migrants are putting down roots in Mexico, legally or illegally, instead of using it as a thruway to the United States.
  

 

[Dragonlady]

It's the law, dope and we don't have to give 2 billion people asylum like you stupidly suggested.

Do you even have any idea of how many applicants there are annually?
What the approval process is?
What percent of applicants actually receive asylum?
Is that number trending up or down over time?

What difference does any of that make? We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.

However they come here anyway, why? Because of people like you. If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.

Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders? They would quit coming here. This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.

Asylum is a "right way", dope.

Applying for asylum is not a crime.

And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.

Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.

This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.

Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?

You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents". At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.

You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening. It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it. YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do". Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do". And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.

Traumatize this, twerp. No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.

The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing. Period. You can clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.

This is the classic conservative gamesmanship whereby they create a crisis in order to be seen as solving it.

Trump said today he didn’t want to look “weak”. Too late. Nothing makes a grown man look weaker than abusing children to get his way. Nothing makes him look weaker than heaping abuse on asylum seekers.

A strong leader doesn’t abuse the weakest among you. Trump has revealed himself to be a coward and a weakling.

Pathetic and deplorable.

 

[Flopper]

Of course you consider it a minor crime. You want it to happen.

No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.

The more Democrat voters the better. You want to award prizes for coming here illegally. I mean literal prizes. Welfare, free education, free medical care. We'll house Mexico's prison population for them. It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!

No, none of this is true.

Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.

Right, and that's been the Republican position. Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal. How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?

And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences? Of course not

Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.

Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006. In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.

This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents. It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.

At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder. This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally. It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.

Okay, dude, seriously. I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly? How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?

A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries. A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services. Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word. English is, presumably, your mother tongue. PLEASE learn to communicate in it.

Typographical errors are you're response? That's pretty lame as well as being irrelevant.

 

[AZGAL]

The centers for the children are run well and run by Hispanics in Texas...

 

[kaz]

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

Think about that

Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age. Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?

These families came seeking asylum. You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
Think about that.

Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them? Of course they could lie. And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that

I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.

When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?

Because that's what you fools are advocating.

A person stopped at the boarder, is not a criminal until he or she crosses the border and a court of law declares him guilty of improper entry, a criminal misdemeanor. Accompanying children are not assumed to be victims of human trafficking without any evidence. This is called due process, a concept you may find strange.

Slavery and sex trafficking not a concern, huh?

 

[kaz]

Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).

Of course you consider it a minor crime. You want it to happen.

No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.

The more Democrat voters the better. You want to award prizes for coming here illegally. I mean literal prizes. Welfare, free education, free medical care. We'll house Mexico's prison population for them. It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!

No, none of this is true.

Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.

Right, and that's been the Republican position. Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal. How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?

And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences? Of course not

Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.

Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and border security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern border, 700,000 in 2006. In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the border and ICE estimates that they're stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.

This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents, even by using expedited deportation, trial in criminal court, and separating families. It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.

At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder. This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally. It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.

Exaggerating, but even so, hundreds of thousands is meh? Yeah, right

 

[kaz]

Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?

The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?

Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.

Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?

But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats. So that doesn't interest the left

The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.

You were melting down about guatamala, not me. What is your plan?

Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.

We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.

I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

Good plan. Dont commit crimes with your kids

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?

The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?

Yep. These humanitarian Democrats describe hell on earth, then want to do nothing to help them other than allow them to come here. If that were really their view and they had a soul, they would want to help rescue all those people from their criminal governments and do it there.

Can you expand on this? What do you want our government to do 'over there' exactly?

But unless they come here, they can't vote for Democrats. So that doesn't interest the left

The last thing anyone cares about is who refugees, who wouldn't become citizens if at all for many, many years is going to vote for. It'd be best if we could eventually relocate them back to their homes though I'm not against them staying either as we need more legal immigration anyway.

You were melting down about guatamala, not me. What is your plan?

Get rid of this policy and go back to what we had. Employ more immigration judges so that they can get through this back log quicker. Did you know that currently children as young as 4 and 5 are going to court alone and facing our legal system? Pretty sick.

We also need more legal immigration and these people need a home, many of them probably meet our standards so I'm not against letting many stay, then again, I'm not afraid of taco trucks or whatever keeps you dolts shaking under the covers.

I'd also work with Mexico to take on many of these refugees, but that would require us having a working relationship with them, not sure we have that now.

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

No, it's not. Most of them plead guilty anyway, because what the hell else can they do? They've been caught dead to rights.

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is that the law demands that the kids not be detained. I realize that the concept of obeying laws is alien to you, but that's YOUR problem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What difference does any of that make? We provide asylum to people who are in great danger of oppressive governments, not people who don't like the direction their country has been the last 20 years.

However they come here anyway, why? Because of people like you. If they can draw enough sympathy from surrender first whites, they may be able to sneak into this country bypassing the millions that await entering our country the right way.

Well gee.......what would happen if we virtually closed our borders? They would quit coming here. This is a concept you will never get through that thick head of yours.

Asylum is a "right way", dope.

Applying for asylum is not a crime.

And neither is the government taking their kids away during the process, yet you on the left bitch about that.

Ripping children out of the arms of their parents is a crime against humanity. At the very least it is a human rights violation of the children’s rights as stated by the United Nations.

This is a traumatizing and terrorizing event for these children, one which will affect them all of their lives. Many of the children are being drugged to deal with the emotional effects of being separated from the parents.

Is this the image the USA wants to project to the world. A nation which terrorizes and traumatizes children for political gain?

You really have no idea how much I'm laughing every time you parrot "ripping out of the arms of their parents". At the point where it became literally impossible for you to use any phrase BUT that, it became farce.

You leftists are 100% responsible for this happening. It was YOUR law; YOU insisted on it. YOU screamed and hollered that it was "the only humane thing to do". Now you flip on a dime and the complete opposite is "the only humane thing to do". And you really, genuinely expect us all to gasp in horror on cue, because you're too piss-stupid to realize how obviously you've overplayed your hand.

Traumatize this, twerp. No one gives a shit about your melodramatic hyperbole any more.

The parents are criminals, they're in jail pending hearing, and they're staying in jail pending hearing. Period. You can clutch your pearls and screech and wail to your heart's content; no one cares.

This is the classic conservative gamesmanship whereby they create a crisis in order to be seen as solving it.

Trump said today he didn’t want to look “weak”. Too late. Nothing makes a grown man look weaker than abusing children to get his way. Nothing makes him look weaker than heaping abuse on asylum seekers.

A strong leader doesn’t abuse the weakest among you. Trump has revealed himself to be a coward and a weakling.

Pathetic and deplorable.

This is the classic leftist gamesmanship, projecting your own bad behavior onto others.

Trump didn't create any of this. If actually enforcing the laws on the books is a problem, it's because LEFTISTS insist on shit laws so that they can hide their real agenda goals behind them.

Nothing makes a leftist look more laughable than hysterical, melodramatic lies.

A strong argument doesn't require wild emotional appeals.

Pathetic and deplorable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.

No, none of this is true.

Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.

Right, and that's been the Republican position. Cut illegal immigration THEN increase legal. How do we increase legal immigration when we're importing 1.8 million illegals a year between border crossings and visa overstays?

And if we did that, would you support actually stopping illegals with real means like walls and jail sentences? Of course not

Illegal immigration has already been cut, it's been low for quite some time and those that get caught are usually deported. So, now it's time to open up legal immigration and no, I don't believe in walls and don't see much of a point in holding those caught for a first time in our jails, deport them.

Yes, illegal immigration has been decreasing ever since Mexico recovered from the recession and boarder security was increased. In 2000, there was an estimated 1 million people attempted to cross the our southern boarder, 700,000 in 2006. In 2016, there were 170,000 arrested at the boarder and ICE estimates that they stopping more than 50% attempting to cross.

This trend makes it really tough for Trump because he just doesn't have enough illegal crossings to match deportation figures of previous presidents. It also makes his wall across the southern boarder less important.

At some point Trump is going to have to concentrate on interior arrests, more that 50 miles from the boarder. This is where most illegal immigrants live, those that did not enter the country illegally. It's also where most long term immigrants are found and where expedited deportation can't be use and undocumented immigrants must be heard in immigration court not criminal court.

Okay, dude, seriously. I generally ignore people's functional illiteracy on the Internet, but do you have any idea how difficult it is to think you're anything but a clueless moron on this subject when you can't even spell "border" correctly? How in the hell is anyone supposed to answer you as though you're a rational, thinking adult like this?

A "border" is a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries. A "boarder" is a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services. Just because they sound alike doesn't make them the same word. English is, presumably, your mother tongue. PLEASE learn to communicate in it.

Typographical errors are you're response? That's pretty lame as well as being irrelevant.

No, dipshit, my responses are my response. Just because you're afraid to acknowledge my posts doesn't mean they aren't there. Go find them, and quit looking to excuse and deflect from the fact that you argue like an incoherent moron.

THIS is just pointing out that your functional illiteracy makes you look like someone who doesn't deserve the respect of serious answers, and also that reading your illiterate posts is like having sand in my swimsuit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

 

[AZGAL]

...This is how MSNBC lies and lies and lies. This spoiled "journalist" probably NEVER has even served soup in an L.A. homeless shelter...
MR. "NATIVE ANGELENO":

@jacobsoboroff
@MSNBC correspondent. Native Angeleno. Instagram & Snapchat: jacobsoboroff
Los Angeles, CA
Jacob Soboroff‏Verified account @jacobsoboroff Jun 13


Here are some photos of the boys in the cafeteria. This is not a school cafeteria. Hundreds called to eat at a time on rotating shifts. When I told @chrislhayes it felt like a prison or jail, I was thinking about this.

 

[AZGAL]

MEANWHILE Homeless Families in L.A.


John and Ken
Rodents and bedbugs keeping homeless out of LA shelters
posted by Arianna Elwess -


With around 43,000 people sleeping on the streets of LA every night, the homeless shelters in the city should be filled. The shelters funded by The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) are at a 78 percent utilization rate in contrast to the 90 percent they are supposed to be at according to their contracts.

The emptiness could be attributed to a number of things but out of the homeless people surveyed by KPCC, most agreed that the unsanitary conditions and vermin were to blame for the empty beds.

Homeless man, Craig Aslin, told KPCC he tried The House of Hope, a boarding home in Jefferson Park but says "it sucked, I got eaten up by bedbugs." In 2017, a public health inspector for The House of Hope did not find any bedbugs but did find 17 other health code violations, including evidence of rats, roaches, suspected mold and issues with waste storage and disposal.

The public health department said it does follow-up inspections and sends compliance letters to shelters. It does not, however, shut shelters down.

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti has proposed funneling $20 million in city funds into creating “temporary” homeless shelters in each of the city’s 15 council districts with the hope that the brand new housing will entice the homeless with promises of clean sheets and better security to help get them back on their feet.

listen to the homeless...they know evidence of bedbugs...