Jump to content

The Trump Administration 2017-


Recommended Posts

These people haven't even crossed the border. They are at the border crossing presenting themselves for asylum and then promptly arrested and not for a misdemeanor and have to go through criminal court proceedings instead of civil court which is what they should be doing. Ugh. That's on top of the points that pavonis made.

 

And today someone told me 765,000 military kids are separated from their parents. What about them? I was speechless. I mean, that is the comparison you're going to give me to judge against. America - running on dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If you need to carry a gun when you go outside to feel safe or free, I question the very concept of freedom and safety these people hold dear. I can understand gun ownership for hunting, home def

I don't know about dishonest but you're definitely fucking exhausting.

Posted Images

 

 

I have no idea what that has to do with anything. Nobody is saying they're not allowed to apply for asylum and their claims are being processed. That's the whole snafu.

 

It was a response to you saying the policy likely stemmed from the idea that asylum claims should be heard at the border. My response was that there is no basis in the law for that - from a practical standpoint I'm sure that it's more convenient for the Administration, but if somebody has a valid asylum claim (yes, I understand that such a claim has to be adjudicated) then they also have a valid defense to a claim that they illegally crossed the border (which, by the way, also has to be adjudicated before it can be penalized).

 

It was also a riff on the fact that the Administration, whether intentionally or not, has been publicly conflating that preference (that asylum claims be heard at the border) with what the law requires - on Tuesday one of the primary Administration talking points was that "if you want to make an asylum claim, then you need to do so at a port of entry." Well, sure, that would be more convenient for the Administration. But it's not a legal requirement.

 

Also, just as an aside to all of this, it's well-settled law that these kids (and their parents, if they are being detained on U.S. soil) are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. It's going to be interesting to see how their rights will be litigated - especially since it's becoming apparent that some of these kids are likely to be permanently separated from their parents as a result of this policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

People claiming asylum need to have their claims investigated. Where they're caught doesn't matter.

Again, I don't understand the point. The asylum claims are being processed. If they weren't, there wouldn't be anything to talk about because parents wouldn't be detained while waiting for the asylum claims to be resolved.

 

Seriously, I don't see what the purpose is of bringing up a law as there's nothing about the situation that runs contrary to it.

They're being arrested and detained without cause. Showing up at the border isn't illegal. This administration is treating it like it's illegal though, and the zero-tolerance policy that is separating families is absolutely deliberate, not a "snafu" or a "snag". They want it to be a deterrent, and the Trump administration was talking about it in early 2017.

 

The border officials are lying to people, saying "the quota" is filled, or that they need visas to enter. You don't need paperwork to ask for asylum before you get here, and there are no quotas. So they get arrested and separated from their families because they showed up looking for safety.

 

The whole situation is heartless and cruel. Politically the optics are bad and so it's unsustainable - even Republicans won't be able to support tearing families apart for misdemeanors, not if they want to continue being the party of "family values" (though I think they've given that up long ago).

I've seen none of what you've just said.

 

It was shown earlier that you can apply for asylum at anything. Correct. But you can't just show up at any point. There are entry points where you can apply for asylum. Any place else though you have to be detained before you can apply. DHS is saying that this isn't what's happening. They say that the majority of people detained have already crossed illegally. Also more than 80% of minors detained are unaccompanied or accompanied by someone who isn't their parent.

 

There are slot of unknowns to this and people are reacting to pictures and videos without either full context or a semblance of the truth. I saw on the news last night an interview with Obama in '14 where he flat out says that they intended for detaining and separations to be a deterrent. People freak out over what Kelly said, but are ignorant to what the previous president said. I know the what about-ism gets old, but you can't ignore the truth to make yourself feel better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was shown earlier that you can apply for asylum at anything. Correct. But you can't just show up at any point. There are entry points where you can apply for asylum. Any place else though you have to be detained before you can apply. DHS is saying that this isn't what's happening. They say that the majority of people detained have already crossed illegally. Also more than 80% of minors detained are unaccompanied or accompanied by someone who isn't their parent.

 

There are slot of unknowns to this and people are reacting to pictures and videos without either full context or a semblance of the truth. I saw on the news last night an interview with Obama in '14 where he flat out says that they intended for detaining and separations to be a deterrent. People freak out over what Kelly said, but are ignorant to what the previous president said. I know the what about-ism gets old, but you can't ignore the truth to make yourself feel better.

 

I'm no expert on asylum law or procedures, but if asylum seekers are trying to enter at a proper port and get turned away, I doubt they'll simply give up and go back home. This administration is apparently keen on discouraging people from even trying to get asylum.

 

And, yes, "what about Obama"-ism does get old, so why do you bring it up? It doesn't justify anything. Obama has been out of office for over 500 days now. When will "What About Obama/Hillary/Democrats" end?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the last administration was trying to discourage people from crossing as well. There courts stopped it and basically we just started letting people come in and and told them to show up for court on said date. And 90% of them then didn't show!

 

I bring it up because people's rage seems to be selective. To be fair most people didn't really pay attention to the Obama presidency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Trump would have started away from an executive order on this but it seems like he's going to let the families stay together. Which oddly enough might bypass the Court ruling saying minors couldn't be held in custody for more than 20 days. Which in turn you know will lead to the 9th circuit sitting down the order. And around and around we go again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing really is a tough call because you either:

 

1. Throw the parents in jail and separate them from their kids.

2. Throw the kids in jail with the parents.

3. Do what Met said. Don't put any of them in jail. Just hope they show up for court. Which they won't .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The money spent on the holding centers, and even the facilities could be a transitionary space for people seeking asylum if our immigration procedure was simpler. The border could be the Ellis island of the 21st century if we actually took in the poor huddled masses as advertised. Let them come in, issue them work visas, and let them find work and homes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just hope they show up for court. Which they won't .

The "90% don't show up" stat is apparently made-up, "fake news" if you will. It's more like 30%. Is that any worse than American citizens failing to appear in court for misdemeanors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They're being arrested and detained without cause. Showing up at the border isn't illegal.

 

The border officials are lying to people, saying "the quota" is filled, or that they need visas to enter. You don't need paperwork to ask for asylum before you get here, and there are no quotas. So they get arrested and separated from their families because they showed up looking for safety.

 

The whole situation is heartless and cruel. Politically the optics are bad and so it's unsustainable - even Republicans won't be able to support tearing families apart for misdemeanors, not if they want to continue being the party of "family values" (though I think they've given that up long ago).

 

They are not being arrested and detained without cause. They are illegally crossing the border. Border patrol agents are not going into Mexico to arrest people for standing there.

 

 

 

the zero-tolerance policy that is separating families is absolutely deliberate, not a "snafu" or a "snag". They want it to be a deterrent, and the Trump administration was talking about it in early 2017.

 

The zero tolerance policy is indeed a deterrent, but separating the children is not the intent.

 

Let me tell you about the real bad stuff. Children making a dangerous journey to the border. Children being sold or kidnapped in order to assist someone in getting across the border. The catch and release program encourages child abuse and human trafficking. That is much, much, INFINITELY worse than than a temporary separation that can end almost immediately if the parent chooses.

 

The zero tolerance policy is good humanitarian policy. The catch and release program was the one that brought horror into children's lives. Tank thinks that ACLU report is bad, letting criminals have children as a loophole is truly letting evil have its way. The child separation part is unfortunate, but can be fixed. I don't have to choose between the two. I choose to ask Congress to fix the 20 day policy and expedite the whole process.

 

You're right, the optics and politics are bad, but the policy is good.

 

 

It was a response to you saying the policy likely stemmed from the idea that asylum claims should be heard at the border. My response was that there is no basis in the law for that - from a practical standpoint I'm sure that it's more convenient for the Administration, but if somebody has a valid asylum claim (yes, I understand that such a claim has to be adjudicated) then they also have a valid defense to a claim that they illegally crossed the border (which, by the way, also has to be adjudicated before it can be penalized).

Claiming asylum, even a valid claim, is not an affirmative defense against entering the country illegally. They are two separate issues. And in most of these cases, the immigrant has already plead guilty and been sentenced to time served within hours of entry.

 

 

 

It was also a riff on the fact that the Administration, whether intentionally or not, has been publicly conflating that preference (that asylum claims be heard at the border) with what the law requires - on Tuesday one of the primary Administration talking points was that "if you want to make an asylum claim, then you need to do so at a port of entry." Well, sure, that would be more convenient for the Administration. But it's not a legal requirement.

 

Obviously not, as the claims are being processed. But if they've entered the country illegally, it is proper for ICE to detain them while the matter is settled.

 

Again, you seem to be conflating two separate things and believing that the ability to claim asylum while in the country, even while in custody, is allowed, it doesn't mean it's legal to cross the border in order to do it.

 

 

 

Also, just as an aside to all of this, it's well-settled law that these kids (and their parents, if they are being detained on U.S. soil) are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. It's going to be interesting to see how their rights will be litigated - especially since it's becoming apparent that some of these kids are likely to be permanently separated from their parents as a result of this policy.

 

The only reason I can think of that the parents would be permanently separated from the children is if they were to essentially abandon them to live with whatever family or whoever is taking care of them. I don't know of any abdication of claim on the child that comes from this policy.

 

That would be the parents' choice, and doesn't break the Constitution in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think these asylum seekers are being set up for later arrest by being turned away at a proper port of entry, Poe? It's a lot of effort on the part of ICE for what I understood to be a misdemeanor.

 

I'm not sure "zero tolerance" policies are ever good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robin

I no longer care about civility for deceivers.

 

Anyone that defends the zero tolerance policy and claims it was not the intent of the policy to separate families when that is the direct result of the policy is a lunatic.

 

Anyone that continues to parrot that this was not Trumps policy and was a law he had to follow is either ignorant or willfully lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So no one was told the quota was full? Or that they didn't have the right paperwork?

 

I'll have to look into it. The facts are out there (to paraphrase Fox Mulder).

The ports of entry reach capacity if that's what you mean. It's not exactly a conspiracy.

 

I no longer care about civility for deceivers.

 

Anyone that defends the zero tolerance policy and claims it was not the intent of the policy to separate families when that is the direct result of the policy is lunatic.

 

Anyone that continues to parrot that this was not Trumps policy and was a law he had to follow is either ignorant or willfully lying.

Sorry to hear that. But it is the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I no longer care about civility for deceivers.

 

Anyone that defends the zero tolerance policy and claims it was not the intent of the policy to separate families when that is the direct result of the policy is lunatic.

 

Anyone that continues to parrot that this was not Trumps policy and was a law he had to follow is either ignorant or willfully lying.

Sorry to hear that. But it is the truth.

Sounds like you agree with Robin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...