What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[protectionist]

Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.

Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers. Can you state how to tell the difference ?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Why remove the child at all?
Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You've explained nothing. Applying for asylum is a LEGAL process. Not illegal.

 

[Pop23]

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

Why remove the child at all?
Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.

OK, how about just deterring the crime from happening in the first place? I guess if we extend your logic, then, if 1,000,000 people rob a bank, instead of trying to deter bank robberies by making drastic changes in the law, we just allow bank robbers to flood the system, breaking the system, so more bank robberies can occur.

Cool

 

[Pop23]

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.

You've explained nothing. Applying for asylum is a LEGAL process. Not illegal.

And again, if you flood the system with illegitimate seekers, the system is going to fail and the legitimate seekers will flounder with the rest. That is your goal after all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.

Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers. Can you state how to tell the difference ?

You can't pretend to be an asylum seeker. Your application is either approved or denied. Either way, it is not a criminal offense to apply for or be denied asylum.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You've explained nothing. Applying for asylum is a LEGAL process. Not illegal.

And again, if you flood the system with illegitimate seekers, the system is going to fail and the legitimate seekers will flounder with the rest. That is your goal after all.

There is no such thing as an "illigitimate seeker". One either qualifies or they don't. Either way there is no crime in applying. It is a legal process.

 

[Pop23]

Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.

Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers. Can you state how to tell the difference ?

You can't pretend to be an asylum seeker. Your application is either approved or denied. Either way, it is not a criminal offense to apply for or be denied asylum.

Did you have a point?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

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

 

[protectionist]

Nonsense. If it wasn't new, Sessions wouldn't have announced the new policy.

HA HA. Next thing will be liberals telling us that cows eating grass is new, and the sky has never been blue until now. Pheeew!

All criminals are jailed. Their kids are not jailed with them. Always been that way. 8 year old kids know that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

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

Why remove the child at all?
Convict the offender, waive the sentence and deport them immediately.

OK, how about just deterring the crime from happening in the first place? I guess if we extend your logic, then, if 1,000,000 people rob a bank, instead of trying to deter bank robberies by making drastic changes in the law, we just allow bank robbers to flood the system, breaking the system, so more bank robberies can occur.

Cool

What's your beef? The offender was convicted. It is a misdemeanor after all. Why should the US pay to house these people for some arbitrary amount of time or take the extra step of removing the child? Simply send them away with a warning not to return.
If they return and are convicted a second time, what is the penalty? Much harsher. Good deterrent.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Asylum seekers aren't illegals, dope.

Many of them are illegals, pretending to be asylum seekers. Can you state how to tell the difference ?

You can't pretend to be an asylum seeker. Your application is either approved or denied. Either way, it is not a criminal offense to apply for or be denied asylum.

Did you have a point?

Apparently you cannot read.

One cannot be "an illegal" while undergoing a legal process, dope.

You dopes always ask why they just don't come here legally. When they do, you still want to lock them up.

Read this and tell me in what way this woman was an "illegal".

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


There's more.

US government accused of unlawfully separating hundreds of migrant families

 

[protectionist]

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 problem with your post is the words "seeking asylum". How do you determine that that's what they're doing, and not just saying that, as a way to squeeze into the country ?

Somebody should write a book with each chapter dealing with a separate, individual con job of the liberal repitiore.

 

[protectionist]

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

Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 problem with your post is the words "seeking asylum". How do you determine that that's what they're doing, and not just saying that, as a way to squeeze into the country ?

Somebody should write a book with each chapter dealing with a separate, individual con job of the liberal repitiore.

The problem with your post is the words "seeking asylum". How do you determine that that's what they're doing, and not just saying that, as a way to squeeze into the country ?

We have a system in place to determine that, dope. They are either aporoved or not.
How you can think it a crime to apply through a legal process is beyond me. That requires a form of convoluted logic I can't comprehend.

 

[protectionist]

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

Claims valid or not, I'm sick and tired of the US being seen as a dumping ground for every country's unwanted people. It goes back to the Mariel Boatlift in the Jimmy Carter days, when Fidel Castro emptied out his prisons and nuthouses, so that the American people could take the burden of these throwaways.

Now, various countries see the US in the same light. Just let good old Uncle SAm have them. USA paying their poverty bill. Now they use the asylum ruse as a way of stuffing them in here. It's time to strictly reduce the process of asylum, if not eliminate it entirely. We're not the world's garbage can.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?

Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?

Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
"Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?

Could be the Border Patrol has ascertained that no, they are NOT asylum seekers. Have you consulted with the Border patrol on this ?

Could be that your dopey response is due to not reading the provided link.

ACLU: Trump administration forcibly separating asylum-seekers from their children
"Referred to in the case as "Ms. L" and "S.S.," the mother and daughter arrived in San Ysidro, California, Nov. 1. They told border guards they were seeking asylum, according to the court documents. Ms. L passed what's called a "credible fear interview," where an officer determined she and S.S. had a "significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum."

Whats to stop her from making up her story?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Claims valid or not, I'm sick and tired of the US being seen as a dumping ground for every country's unwanted people. It goes back to the Mariel Boatlift in the Jimmy Carter days, when Fidel Castro emptied out his prisons and nuthouses, so that the American people could take the burden of these throwaways.

Now, various countries see the US in the same light. Just let good old Uncle SAm have them. USA paying their poverty bill. Now they use the asylum ruse as a way of stuffing them in here. It's time to strictly reduce the process of asylum, if not eliminate it entirely. We're not the world's garbage can.

Call your representative.

 

[protectionist]

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.

You're forgetting one thing. The people we're talking about are AT THE BORDER, and caught on the American side. Why are they there ? If they are asylum seekers, why are they not still in their home countries, and applying for asylum by mail or online ?

Want an easy answer ? Because they're NOT asylum seekers,..... they don't have to BE HERE to do that.