What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[iamwhatiseem]

The solution for this is really easy.
Have a "Volunteer my House" campaign.
All of the people "outraged" by this can voluntarily give up at least half their home, feed/clothe them during the process.
Something tells me the whining would subside quickly.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Sure, it's much better to throw due process and human rights out the window for politically adventageous policy.

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

On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make the criminal prosecution of immigration offenses a “high priority”—notwithstanding the fact that criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses already made up more than half of all federal prosecutions nationwide. These directives fail to mention U.S. treaty obligations that prohibit the penalization of refugees for illegal entry or presence—protections that were created in the wake of World War II, when many nations treated refugees who sought asylum in their countries or fled on invalid travel documents as “illegal” entrants.

 

[protectionist]

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."

Shouldn't be done that way. They should apply for asylum from their home , back in their home country. The fact you said they arrived in San Ysidro, California, before even talking to border guards, tells us they committed crime of EWI.

This cart before horse. Only AFTER being granted asylum, by mail or online, should they even have begun to travel to the US.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

I'll go along with that.

I in no way support illegal immigration.
They should be processed and moved out as quickly as possible.

My beef is screwing with the asylum system.
This is established law and these people deserve due process. Anything less is not the American way. It is the govts job to manage the border not circumvent their own laws. If they are denied, deport them immediately.

 

[protectionist]

Whats to stop her from making up her story?

Nothing.

 

[dannyboys]

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.

NO ONE is trying to "deter" legitament refugees from coming to the US you IDIOT!!!!!
That's right! Not even your most hated Trump. All anyone is asking is that the process should be fair.
Coaching tens of thousands (DEM voters) of people trying to get into the US by teaching them the only english they will likely ever know to say "I'm seeking asylum" is plain bullshit.
And YOU KNOW IT!!!!!

 

[protectionist]

Call your representative.

Absolutely. We all should.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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."

Shouldn't be done that way. They should apply for asylum from their home , back in their home country. The fact you said they arrived in San Ysidro, California, before even talking to border guards, tells us they committed crime of EWI.

This cart before horse. Only AFTER being granted asylum, by mail or online, should they even have begun to travel to the US.

Are you daft?
San Ysidro border crossing, fool. They walked up to the border and applied. How is that different than applying at a US embassy or consulate?

 

[protectionist]

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.

If the illegal aliens are being locked up, and separated from their kids, that means that NO, they did NOT go through a proper legal channel. If they're being locked up, it's because they crossed the border ILLEGALLY - violation of US Code 8, Section 1325.

 

[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.

NO ONE is trying to "deter" legitament refugees from coming to the US you IDIOT!!!!!
That's right! Not even your most hated Trump. All anyone is asking is that the process should be fair.
Coaching tens of thousands (DEM voters) of people trying to get into the US by teaching them the only english they will likely ever know to say "I'm seeking asylum" is plain bullshit.
And YOU KNOW IT!!!!!

You can have that opinion but it's not for you or me to decide. There is a system in place to do that. Do you know that those who are denied are deported?

 

[protectionist]

Yeah, "they are here" - having crossed the border EWI. So they go to jail, for that. Then, if they're applying for asylum, and are denied, they get deported - and it should be immediately.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

If the illegal aliens are being locked up, and separated from their kids, that means that NO, they did NOT go through a proper legal channel. If they're being locked up, it's because they crossed the border ILLEGALLY - violation of US Code 8, Section 1325.

No, they're being locked up for Trump's policy and denied due process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

So they can return a week later?

Better just to put em in holes in the desert.

 

[protectionist]

…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.

I have not heard anybody argue that anybody has no due process rights. The law of the land, is US Code 8, Section 1325 (Improper Entry By Alien)and it must be obeyed by migrants, and it is the duty of Federal authorities to enforce it. Period.

Secondly, Trump not said or done anything hateful or bigoted, despite the incessant con jobbing rantings of scatterbrained liberals.

 

[protectionist]

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

That wasn't the question.

 

[Coyote]

But what about the effect of the policy on the children themselves? Is there a point at which punishing the parents for their behavior becomes punishing the kids? You see every argument turns into something like “the parents deserve it because they did wrong”...ok....let’s accept that now for the sake of the argument. But do the kids deserve it?

So where do you suggest the kids go, when their parents are in jail ?

Where they wete before Sessions decrated this policy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

…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.

I have not heard anybody argue that anybody has no due process rights. The law of the land, is US Code 8, Section 1325 (Improper Entry By Alien)and it must be obeyed by migrants, and it is the duty of Federal authorities to enforce it. Period.

Secondly, Trump not said or done anything hateful or bigoted, despite the incessant con jobbing rantings of scatterbrained liberals.

It's up to the discretion of the federal authorities how to enforce it. Favoring prosecution over due process is wrong. That is also the law. If their claim is valid then good to go. If not, buh bye.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

That wasn't the question.

That was my answer.

 

[Coyote]

That does not give us the right to terrorize the children.

Like I said just previously, sending them alone amidst all the violence and lawlessness to get here is terrifying enough for the child, aside from being apart from their parents of course.

You don't see how much this hurts the child. We aren't hurting the child, the parents are.

In this the kids are not alone but with their parents.

 

[Coyote]

Human rights abuses are not a tool used by America.

No, but by using these children as tools, you have already violated their human rights.

Thanks for playing.

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.

So whats your solution?

Whst we were doing previously in regards to detaining families with children.