What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

So what is your solution?

 

[Pop23]

The other day I saw a photo of a women trying to cross the border with NINE children! The problem is ALL of the children were approximately the same age! Ranging from about three to five years old.
Miracles really do happen in S.A. Roman Catholic families I guess.

And if found that they were not her children? That would be a criminal act that she should be charged with and separated from ALL the children.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?

The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's a step too far.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.

There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?

That's crazy.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.

You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's the purpose of the point?

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.

So whats your solution?

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?

The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's a step too far.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.

There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?

That's crazy.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.

You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's the purpose of the point?

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different

Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.

Clear enough now?

 

[Pop23]

So whats your solution?

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.

THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.

Do you even know what a deterrent is?

 

[dannyboys]

Yes, a legal claim. Charging them as illegals and seperating families is a punative action against those involved in a legal process for no other reason than to dter future applicants. An unnecessarily harsh policy.

FALSE! It is to deport those who have no legal status to be here, and who are lucky if they aren't imprisoned for violating US code 8, Section 1325.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

I'm talking about asylum seekers at border crossings. I've only posted it a half a dozen times.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children

Anyone of these people can be coached to claim they are seeking asylum you MUTT!
By that standard anyone on the planet can enter the USA!
" My former boss in Romania kept 'looking at me funny'. I had no choice but to flee to the good old US which is full of 'White Guilt LIB soccer moms. I KNOW they'll let me in!. By the way the LIBs can always count on my vote. I also have four sisters who had the same 'devastating' experiences' where they worked...........cranking out cheap knock-off plastic sex toys".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If we are taking people who are claiming asylum, that should be an immediate declaration of war on the nation from whence such asylum seekers came, and subsequent invasion.

If we're gonna be the fucking world police, none of this shit should ever be excused. People should die.

The better option: Take nobody, cut welfare in half, cut military spending in half, and quit being world police.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You got a link to the LAW, to show that ? And a source for the claim of charging asylum applicants as illegal crossers ?

And do you think anyone who claims to be seeking asylum really is ? Ever occur to you that maybe they're lying ? It's not unusual for criminals to say what they think will keep them from being arrested.

I wonder if the US should really be granting asylum anyway, even if it's legit. Everything in life has a limitation - including a nation's population capacity. Do we really want to be the homeless shelter for the world ?

Asylum claims are for the system to figure out.

Charging those who arrive at border crossings seeking asylum as illegal crossers and seperating them from their children is not legit.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children

"The System" cannot handle the load when EVERY PERSON claims to be seeking "Asylum". Most come for ECONOMIC reasons, or because they flee criminal activity. Neither is what would commonly be described as an asylum seeker.

One must qualify to be considered for asylum. The system decides if claims are valid.
The system is there because it's the law.
If it's overburdened then assign more resources. It is a legal process. As such, due diligence is required by those adjudicating claims. Due process must be observed.

Creating a policy that makes the process hostile to applicants and their family members or otherwise waives the substantive due process in favor of criminal proceedings with the intent of deterring future applicants is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional as well.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.

So whats your solution?

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Seems more like unnecessary human rights violations.

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?

The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's a step too far.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.

There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?

That's crazy.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.

You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's the purpose of the point?

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different

Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.

Clear enough now?

You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child" or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.

 

[Pop23]

So whats your solution?

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.

Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.

Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different from another?

The children aren't being charged. The policy is separating families for the express purpose of being a deterrent and has nothing to do with the actual crime. It's a step too far.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that. It's the parent that commits the crime by sending the child (who has diminished capacity) to perform an illegal activity.

There is nothing new here. Why is it that someone from a different country is to be treated any different, when committing a crime, than an american citizen?

That's crazy.

Where is it written that a child must be charged to be separated from the parent. I certainly didn't write that.

You just wrote about parents forcing their kids to commit crimes being sepearated.
If you aren't talking about charging kids, then what's the purpose of the point?

Sorry you feel that way.

And if you do, then is it also a human rights violation when the couple that forces their child to shoplift gets separated from them as well? Or the couple that dispatches their child to get illegal drugs from the pusher down the street get separated?

Why is one illegal activity to be treated different

Again, where is it written THAT A CHILD MUST BE CHARGED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT!. If the parent uses a child, which has, by it's very nature, diminished capability, to participate in criminal activity, then IT IS THE PARENT THAT IS CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, and still the two are separated.

Clear enough now?

You suggested that, fool. I just showed you why.
The parent committed the crime by crossing illegally. Whatever you mean by "using a child" or "forcing a kid to shoplift" is irrelevant to that fact. Separation of the family is not mandatory under the law.

You can twist like a pretzel all you want. In the practical application of law enforcement or to that matter our judicial system, involving a child in criminal activity most often results in that child being removed from the parent. PERIOD

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.

THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.

Do you even know what a deterrent is?

How so?
If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.

 

[Pop23]

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

No. The system decides which claims are valid. The deterrent is meant to dissuade future applicants whether their claims are valid or not.

THE DETERRENT is not to dissuade the legitimate from application, it is to dissuade the non-legitimate.

Do you even know what a deterrent is?

How so?
If applicants are afraid to apply for asylum simply because they fear criminal charges and being separated from their children, that applies to all applicants.

Been explained over and over and over. Our entire law enforcement system is based on a series of deterrents.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Do you have a link proving children were detained with their parents under the previous administration? I don't think they were, as it is against our law and has been long before Trump. I think you are referring to "catch and release," where everyone is just let go with a court date. That clearly didn't work, so now we are going to try enforcing our laws. There's this thing we need to fix, though. Trump doesn't like it, you don't like it, much of America doesn't like it. Congress should address this issue, as Trump is suggesting/whining/calling for, as it is their job.

U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say

When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders. Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.

Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.

Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?

Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.

So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?

I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Eliminate the horrible policy.

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.

Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.

Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.

Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.

People must meet the qualifications in order to proceed through the process. The system decides.

How do you deter "illegitimate" claims?
There is no penalty if an application is denied. There is no criminal act in not qualifying for asylum.

 

[Pop23]

U.S. is separating immigrant parents and children to discourage others, activists say

When family detention centers are full, which they are, what do we do other than catch & release. Catch & release is a failure. Congress needs to either accommodate the influx of reduce the influx. It's their job, not Trump's. Trump is even calling for them to fix it because catch & release failed. We are now going to enforce our laws by detaining unknowns illegally crossing our borders. Are you suggesting we continue catch & release? Are you suggesting we build more family detention centers? Are you suggesting there's no problem? Ending catch & release is good, IMO. We need to find some way to protect children as much as possible. I am open to options.

Why do we have family detention centers? They should be nothing more than a bus stop where they wait for a ride back to Mexico. We take them over the border and drop them off for Mexico to deal with. It’s not our problem.

Did it occur to you that they might not be Mexican, either?

Don’t care. They crossed from Mexico so they go back there. Our job is done. What Mexican chooses to do with them is their choice.

So, we have the right to refuse entry into our country to people without papers, but Mexico does not have the same right to block people that we try to send over there without papers?

I think that I have found the nature of your thinking malfunction, Sparky......

Mexico has the right to do whatever they wish. If they wish to deny the entry of those we catch crossing FROM MEXICO ILLEGALLY, that is something that can only be addressed by a border wall.

 

[Pop23]

Thats not an answer.

It is indeed an answer. Creating a policy that uses human rights violations as a deterrent for furure applicants to a legal process is not a solution at all. It's making an existing legal pathway a nightmare so people don't try to use it.

Change the law if it's a problem.

We use deterrents to stop the abuse of the system. You either deter or you allow anyone the privilege of breaking the law.

By definition, if they're using the system, they're not breaking the law. Asylum is a legal process.

Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.

Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.

Claiming you are seeking Asylum, and actually seeking Asylum is the rub.

People must meet the qualifications in order to proceed through the process. The system decides.

How do you deter "illegitimate" claims?
There is no penalty if an application is denied. There is no criminal act in not qualifying for asylum.

I see you cut out the main point I made, so I will post it again:

Again, ANYONE can claim, and that's the point isn't it? Flood the system with those that can't prove it so that the system fails. So the obligation then is to deter those that have illegitimate claims, so that those that do, have access to a fully functional system.