What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[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."

Whats to stop her from making up her story?

For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.

 

[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?

For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.

So how does the system determine if someone is lying?

 

[protectionist]

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

If they cross the border without inspection from US immigration authorities, that is EWI (Entry Without Inspection). That's a crime. If they wanted to be granted political asylum, that should be arranged beforehand, not by climbing over a fence, or hiding in the trunk of a car.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Neither is keeping them together. Nor is it the normal way of doing things. Do you see kids of American criminals sitting in prison cells with their parents ?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

But they are here. Their case still needs to be properly adjudicated.
What happens to them if it's denied?
Their case is referred to an immigration judge for immediate deportation proceedings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…in the meantime, while conservatives continue their hateful, ignorant whining about how ‘wrong’ the law is to afford undocumented immigrants the right to due process – it is nonetheless the law of the land, and it must be obeyed by Federal authorities.

Conservatives are at liberty to continue to vote for hateful bigots like Trump who will appoint likeminded hateful bigots to the courts in an effort to overturn current Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence concerning the rights of undocumented immigrants, but for now any conservative who ‘argues’ that those undocumented have no due process rights are as ignorant as they are wrong.

 

[protectionist]

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.

What would make an asylum applicant fear criminal charges. If they're hundreds of miles away in Honduras, what criminal charge might they fear ?

 

[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."

Whats to stop her from making up her story?

For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.

So how does the system determine if someone is lying?

You figure that out.
Types of Asylum Decisions

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Neither is keeping them together. Nor is it the normal way of doing things. Do you see kids of American criminals sitting in prison cells with their parents ?

It's up to the discretion of the court. Or at least it was before the new policy.

 

[protectionist]

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......

You have that backwards. Mexico, for years, has had far more strict immigration borders than we do. Their southern borders with Guatemala and Belize, are not like our porous southern border.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

What would make an asylum applicant fear criminal charges. If they're hundreds of miles away in Honduras, what criminal charge might they fear ?

Obviously that is not the same thing.

Check out this sweet new policy.

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

 

[protectionist]

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.

That's not what they're being arrested and jailed for. That occurs from them having committed the CRIME of EWI.

 

[protectionist]

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

I'll go along with that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

For the umpteenth time, the system determines the eligibility of the applicant.
She went through the proper legal channel and you still look for a problem with her. SMH.

So how does the system determine if someone is lying?

You figure that out.
Types of Asylum Decisions

Thats says nothing about how they determine the validity of the claim.

 

[protectionist]

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

But crossing the border without inspection IS illegal.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

So they can return a week later?

 

[flacaltenn]

You are using children as hostages. You are no different than terrorists.

And the left is not???

You are the one who wants to treat children as criminals.

Placing them in detention jails with adults who may harm them whether with the parents or not would be criminal..........Then tomorrow you'd be look what you did to these families.....................Can't house them with all the adults...........got news for you.........some aren't so nice coming over.........

Kids going to other detention centers are for their own protection..............but the INN IS FULL.........only 40,000 beds......

Brings us to another lie the left pushes...........that those crossing is much smaller............more BS.

Face it..........your identity politics here is to attack to get Catch and Release back which is basically your real goal of open borders.

They shouldn't be in detention jails. They need to be in facilities for families. Treating people right has nothing to do with what to do with illegals. Thye should be treated right while they are there and until their status is determined legally.

you have NO f'ing concept of the SCOPE of this problem. We're NOT gonna build "facilities" for 30,000 families at a time, spread over 2000 miles or more of border country. We're gonna review their CLAIMS for asylum and make a judgement and be done with it.

Even if Uncle Sam BUILT those facilities, it would look more like Gitmo than a Comfort Inn..

 

[protectionist]

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.

But we're talking about people who have crossed the border without being cleared by US immigration authorities. That's why they get locked up, not because of anything having to do with asylum.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Cool. Then let then apply from hundreds of miles away from the US, not crossing the US border illegally.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

They are HUMAN TRAFFICKERS on their way back to pick up more children.