This was Ned's very important point from below which is deserving of it's own thread. Do you want trump to go down the same rabbit hole that Obama did? Remember, you don'y get to be the one to decide which laws are worthy of enforcement and which are not. Do you want to grant the office of the president the power to ignore enforcement the laws set forth by the legislative branch when he sees fit?
Why doesn’t Congress make it a law that anyone captured while crossing the border illegally will be immediately deported to Mexico or Canada and no one will be allowed in at a border crossing claiming asylum if they had not already been vetted at the US embassy or alternatively placed in a detention while an expedited review of their claim was evaluated and if turned down immediately be repatriated to their country of origin.
I realize the details of such a law would need to be worked out and some of the people coming here who are drug or human smugglers would need to spend a few decades in Federal Pridon before being deported.
enforcing the law. If people try to commit a crime, they should be stopped. What part of the law says to separate families. I believe that is the most outlandish of the border acts that this administration is "enforcing." No where does the law state to remove children from parental custody.
Removing children from their parents is mentally traumatic and can have long term impact.
And Trump should stop using this tactic to appeal to his base.
2016: The Mexicans will pay for the wall.
2017: The congress will pay for the wall.
2018: These families will get someone to pay for the wall.
And Pence, the stooge puppet always in the background smiling and nodding at Trump's follies.
The children end up in the US with sponsors as if they were unaccompanied minors, the adults are deported. I am not sure what the law states, but I am guessing you can't deport the children.
So they haven't been prosecuted yet, presumed innocent. I hate to get into such old fashioned constitutional issues.
Any different from a citizen being charged with a crime, taken into custody and their children temporarily placed with child protective services? I say no.
(no message)
The only thing that changed is that the parents have to go home while the kids are placed with sponsors rather than amnesty/refugee status for all.
There is a single act that puts the "breaking up the family" option into the realm of possibility and it is, illegal border crossing with your family. I get why they take the risk, but this isn't FDR 1942 either. The kids are now and will be fine, quite possibly better off in some cases.
(no message)
And they aren't really "cages." They are processing facilities which are large open areas, like a gymnasium, in which they have put up chainlink fencing to set areas apart as a temporary measure.
Whatever. These people are getting the same treatment US citizen adults and children would get if the adults violated the law in the same mass numbers, without having made provisions for the care of their children.
(no message)
(no message)
Try all you want to change the subject. But what is happening now - and what was NOT happening before - is that children are being taken away, often screaming, from their parents at the border (or as our dumbfuck president says, the boarder).
This is a change in policy - it has squat to do with the law, so your whole premise is false - supported by Miller and Sessions.
Our government is using the pain of children to deter immigration. Splitting up families is not used to deter any other crime, ever - and illegally crossing the border is a MISDEMEANOR. And seeking asylum is NOT A CRIME AT ALL.
In other words, this has NOTHING to do with crime. These people are not MS-13 members.
Trump thinks that this - like all immigration hardline policies - will help him with his base. He might be right...because his base has lost their moral compass.
If you agree with him, then you have lost yours, too.
Border security and immigration policy are complex issues that surely aren't going to be solved with the binary mindset you've deployed here nor that of the others on the other side.
Also, this is a new policy, so its not at all clear that the "risks were known."
(no message)
(no message)
Policy changes happen at every level of government all the time, that isn't a valid defense for illegal activity that has been generally not enforced. But risks are known.
I should note that I am not defending the policy per se, I am pointing out that immigration policy has been a mess for a long time. The new sheriff is changing policy, there are unintended consequences, but it should be noted that they didn't create the mess. Also, no intelligent conversations are being had on the issue, just a shouting match between two sides which will never be productive.
This is a deliberate policy cooked up by Miller and Sessions, according to current reporting, to use the detention of children as a deterrent to immigration.
It’s horrible.
The policy change was zero tolerance on illegal border crossing.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Let's flesh out your morality and find all the contradictions and hypocrisies. Abortion is too easy.
(no message)
I will address your points sequentially (since you wouldn't address my questio):
1) "Try all you want to change the subject. But what is happening now - and what was NOT happening before - is that children are being taken away, often screaming, from their parents at the border (or as our dumbfuck president says, the boarder)."
- It happens everytime a second offender (a felony, not a misdemeanor) then claims amnesty rather than choose the option to leave with their child. They are made aware of this clearly, and they still choose it. Because the amnesty evaluation takes longer than 21 days, the children are then placed per the Flores Act rather than be housed by ICE who is not equiped for longterm childcare. Do you think that no one has claimed asylum before Trump? In fact, i linked one of your former posts below where you proclaim that more deportations happened under Obama than Bush. Necessarily, the number of asylum seekers then were also higher. No complaints from you back then. Why had your media not mentioned it?
2) "This is a change in policy"
- categorically false. The law existed and was enforced under 3 prior presidents for good reason. Without it, there is a wide loophole for anyone to skirt the normal immigration process and gain access to our country as long as they have a child in their arms. This would lead to unfettered immigration, security risks, and a child slave market which would use the children. At present, children are being handled humanely and no cages are being used (though those guys and their bosses have never been investigated because you don't share the same outrage for Obama era crimes).
- you now want Trump to illegally ignore the law like Obama has done on many occasions, but YOU want to be in charge of which laws he ignores.
3) "Our government is using the pain of children to deter immigration. Splitting up families is not used to deter any other crime, ever - and illegally crossing the border is a MISDEMEANOR. And seeking asylum is NOT A CRIME AT ALL."
-False. Dems are upset that their voter infusion has slowed, and they wish to blame it on this. They know that good parents who love their children won't choose to try seek asylum, but they want those votes. The intent of the law is to provide good care to children in a long term setting while having an enforceable immigration process. You wrap yourself in "the children", but you don't know anything about the situations being dealt with, and I'm sorry, but you didn't demonstrate the same degree of concern when it involved caged children a few weeks ago when you discovered it happened under Obama - I gave you a few chances, but you weren't outraged then).
- False, being caught for re-entry a second time is a felony. Even then they are processed within a couple of days and released with their children unless they CHOOSE to have their children sent away why thay claim asylum in which case, they can be re-united with them if they are successful.
3) "In other words, this has NOTHING to do with crime. These people are not MS-13 members."
- yes, it has to do with a felony on re-entry attempt as mentioned.
- How do you know that these won't be MS-13 members if this law is changed? many will since it will become widely abused by criminals, and children will suffer incredible as they become "tools" for the criminals
4) "Trump thinks that this - like all immigration hardline policies - will help him with his base. He might be right...because his base has lost their moral compass".
- Reading minds and motives of individuals is best left to carnival employees.
- I do not consider any group that supports separating children from their families and from life itself (abortion on demand) to be in a postion to determine anyone else's moral
compass.
5) "If you agree with him, then you have lost yours, too."
-You and I don't make that call. Offer a specific alternative that protects against the above metnioned concerns, and I am all ears.
No prior administration interpreted the law like this. Not one.
Link: Please tell me you can learn
that other guy too!
(no message)
You're just using this issue as another point in your year-and-a-half-long temper tantrum. How are these tactics working for you? "Why don't you stupid, immoral people start thinking the way I think?" Brilliant strategy.
What would you label someone who uses children to try to further political goals? Would that merit the label of "immoral?"
Oh, right.
And, twit, may I remind you that you're the veritable genius and moral creature who uses the word "retard" and _____tard" at, what, 47 years of age, you little girl. Now go get to work and accomplish something today (slap on the ass).
WE have principles; THEY are just playing politics.
It’s a common misperception, exacerbated amog your dipshits, imbeciles and retards.
But after all, it was a matter of political knowledge, and being a "political scientist," how could anyone have expected a non-expert to know of things like that, right Scooter?
This did not happen under previous presidents.
If it did, all thinking/feeling people would have been opposed.
(no message)
Visual Album, New Orleans, LA?" Inconceivable!
You don't want to be him, even if you are.
You must be very proud. But try to be more tolerant.
Cheers, good fellow!
The guy was easily the biggest jerkoff on this and other boards.
A humorless, cranky, offensive ass.
I hope it’s not you, for your sake. And your wife’s.
Is this what Academia has done to you? Made you uncordial and less than collegial?
Perhaps you could reconsider?
Cheers!
(no message)
Link: http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/392945-dem-house-candidate-in-west-virginia-voted-for-trump
Instead they will be separate anyway when the parents are thrown in jail.
These are people illegally entering our country and we are supposed to feel sorry for them?
Piss off
(no message)
Any replacement that continues to separate them from their votes is unacceptable.
I am more than glad to listen to alternatives. But i don't want children in jail with their parents, I don't want ICE becoming a giant daycare service, I don't want children in the hands of people who would choose to separate themselves from their children (excpet in the extreme cases where that is the safest choice for the children due to the squalor that they are escaping in which case the children are actually being helped by the process and will be reunited with their parents if our legal system is up to snuff), and i don't want a loophole created which encourages children to be used as a tool to access the country because the children will be horribly abused in that case.
Separation and detainment of children is in most cases temporary.
Enforcement is not "policy".
It is immoral not to enforce a law.
Change the law.
The Flores Act was a timebomb.
And you know it.
And wouldn't it be nice to go one day without you obsessive abortion monomaniacs bringing up your favorite subject?
Wrong + wrong = AOK, in your twisted moral universe. Godspeed.
Having families together in jail would be much better, eh?
You are extremely disingenuous.
The Democrats have always supported illegal immigration.
This is about low cost voter acquisition.
And you know it.
(no message)