Trump's America is taking children away from their parents at the border and detaining them separately

[Alastor]

To apply for asylum in the United States and for withholding of removal (formerly called "withholding of deportation"). You may file for asylum if you are physically in the United States and you are not a United States citizen.

The question is whether you have to be in the United States legally in the first place. Or if it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter I would question the rationale. As it would basically mean that every single illegal alien can just apply for asylum when caught and get to stay.

[Heathen Hammer]

Why do people have issues with authorities separating parents from children? Gee, good question.

Authorities do that all the time to people that break laws.

[Big War Bird]

The issue here is that Trump's EO only came after fierce backlash and criticism. He's making a problem worse, not better. I also don't know how the subject of trafficking got brought up. It's completely tangential to the accusations made against Trump.

The thrust of this whole thread is that it is a moral outrage to separate alleged families. I'm pointing out that there is a good reason to do so and therefore the moral outrage isn't so justified.

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership of a particular social group, Political opinion.

Just because one claims asylum, that doesn't mean one gets asylum and it certainly doesn't mean one gets to move about the country. When one claims asylum he is asking for a hearing to prove the claim. Until that claim is resolved that person remains in custody. That is perfectly understandable and reasonable. As it turns out most do not have legitimate claims.

Moreover, I have few issues with illegal immigrants. Economic data on their impact is mixed at best, crime data shows hey have little aggregate impact, and they represent less than 5% of the population, half of whom have been living in America for a decade or longer. Whether we should automatically grant a form of residency to illegal immigrants is a tougher ask, but there is no benefit to prosecuting them and treating them like criminals. It's a waste, moreover chasing them like rats is inhumane. There is little to indicate that we'll be overrun by immigrants if we loosen enforcement. I wish people would focus on actual issues that the country is facing instead of attempting to create another one.

I cannot agree to this. Our highest value is adherence to law. We cannot ignore the law out of convenience or even our benefit. By all means advocate changing a law if you disagree with it, but do not abandon this principle.

Except I would emphasize that the issue of traffickers is not as important as you insinuate, nor is Trump attempting to target that issue.

The administration is saying they are/were only separating kids when they couldn't verify they were with their parents or believed the kids to be in danger. That's what they say. Of course they can't detain kids longer than 20 days by order of the Flores Agreement, in which case they have to send them onto some sort of foster care.

[Genghis Skahn]

So I heard something interesting on CBC radio today:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0321a01d02a91

The so-called "symbol" of this migrant parent-child separation crisis wasn't even separated from her mother. John Moore, the photographer who took the picture, apparently didn't even know what happened to the mother and child. At best, lazy/poor investigative journalism; at worst, direct obfuscation of the facts("fake news"). At the very least, the various news sources who picked up this photo(and the photographer who took it) really should have done their homework--this really isn't helping them defeat the "fake news" narrative.

At any rate, before anyone cries wolf at me: I'm not insinuating in any way shape or form that this parent-child separation wasn't happening. I just thought it would be interesting for posters in this thread to be aware of this new development.

Also, Chuck Schumer is pretty shameless(if it wasn't obvious to everyone by now). If he and the democrats actually cared about those kids(not that the Republicans do) he wouldn't have struck down the proposed legislative change by the Republicans in favor of pressuring Trump to make an EO(assuming the link provided by Aexodus upthread is to be believed). I know that this political tactic worked for them, but it also meant betraying the best interests of these children in favor of partisan politics and making Drumpf look bad. Anyhow, they got what they wanted, Trump issued an EO just like Schumer said he wanted him to do.

[Love Mountain]

The question is whether you have to be in the United States legally in the first place. Or if it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter I would question the rationale. As it would basically mean that every single illegal alien can just apply for asylum when caught and get to stay.

You don't. You can always apply for asylum, even if you are caught being illegal in the United States.

Authorities do that all the time to people that break laws.

I'm glad to see what your threshold is for things being okay.

The thrust of this whole thread is that it is a moral outrage to separate alleged families. I'm pointing out that there is a good reason to do so and therefore the moral outrage isn't so justified.

Yes, there are good reasons to do so. Abusive families, families that aren't families, criminal families, etc. Having a zero-tolerance policy for immigrants isn't one of them. Trump carelessly decided to crack down on immigration without thinking anything through, hence the moral outrage of the consequences. All we know is that there are 2000+ kids separated from their families. Precious little information apart from that and precious little effort from Trump's administration to determine whether the separation was a good idea or not. There are plenty of reasons for feeling morally outraged.

Just because one claims asylum, that doesn't mean one gets asylum and it certainly doesn't mean one gets to move about the country. When one claims asylum he is asking for a hearing to prove the claim. Until that claim is resolved that person remains in custody. That is perfectly understandable and reasonable. As it turns out most do not have legitimate claims.

All people are entitled to a trial and a right to claim asylum. Whether it pans out or not is up to the law to decide, and there will be a case-by-case documentation for people to pour over on whether punitive action was justified or not. Trump's policies of automatically separating families at the point of entry leaves little nuance.

I cannot agree to this. Our highest value is adherence to law. We cannot ignore the law out of convenience or even our benefit. By all means advocate changing a law if you disagree with it, but do not abandon this principle.

No. Our highest value is adherence to just laws. Whether a law is just or not can be gauged by the results it produces. There are plenty of laws I disagree with and an unnecessarily harsh punishment for violation of relatively minor issues is akin to tyranny. We can't simply strictly adhere to principles, fringe cases, and there are many, require nuance, patience, and wisdom.

The administration is saying they are/were only separating kids when they couldn't verify they were with their parents or believed the kids to be in danger. That's what they say. Of course they can't detain kids longer than 20 days by order of the Flores Agreement, in which case they have to send them onto some sort of foster care.

Which is contrary to what the law says. Trump ordered a no tolerance policy in regards to illegal border crossings, but they can't prosecute kids, nothing to do with whether the kids are in danger or not.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm glad to see what your threshold is for things being okay.

Wait, so now you are saying that there should be no jails? Because that's what happens to people who break the law, they are separated from their children too in that scenario.

[Love Mountain]

At any rate, before anyone cries wolf at me: I'm not insinuating in any way shape or form that this parent-child separation wasn't happening. I just thought it would be interesting for posters in this thread to be aware of this new development.

Yeah, you're just trying to do more finger pointing and yelling of "fake news". Much better.

Also, Chuck Schumer is pretty shameless(if it wasn't obvious to everyone by now). If he and the democrats actually cared about those kids(not that the Republicans do) he wouldn't have struck down the proposed legislative change by the Republicans in favor of pressuring Trump to make an EO(assuming the link provided by Aexodus upthread is to be believed). I know that this political tactic worked for them, but it also meant betraying the best interests of these children in favor of partisan politics and making Drumpf look bad.

Sure. Shameless for urging a quick EO order instead of a fairly lengthy legislative procedure. How dare he.

Wait, so now you are saying that there should be no jails? Because that's what happens to people who break the law, they are separated from their children too in that scenario.

I'm glad to see you don't deny it. Sure no jails, if the alternative is that we must separate families regardless of what law mandates it. You know, no matter how inhumane, evil, or twisted that law is.

[Alastor]

You don't. You can always apply for asylum, even if you are caught being illegal in the United States.

That doesn't make sense. What is stopping every single illegal alien caught from doing that and avoiding expulsion then?

[Aexodus]

@Sukiyama would you not agree tho that Obama’s policy did nothing to combat the illegal immigration or deter people from making what is a dangerous journey, resulting in children get pulled dead from rivers and being abused by traffickers. It’s illegal for a reason.

I would agree. Except I would emphasize that the issue of traffickers is not as important as you insinuate, nor is Trump attempting to target that issue. I would also argue that any effort to humanize the immigration policy and to crack down on actual dangerous criminal elements would face fierce opposition from Republicans.

I would also argue that your focus on trafficking is a clown show that's not related to the issue. There are ways to address human trafficking that are completely separate from our immigration policy. Not that human trafficking is a significant issue in comparison to 2000+ children being separate from parents in a matter of weeks.

You’re entitled to your opinion about trafficking, but what about deterring illegal immigration which I also mentioned?

Asylum seekers have legitimate reasons for entering a safe country. In order to achieve asylum status you must,

Well for a start, asylum seekers seek asylum in the first safe country they come to.

Second, just to be clear, you’re not saying that claiming asylum should absolve someone of any criminal offenses they commit?

[Genghis Skahn]

Yeah, you're just trying to do more finger pointing and yelling of "fake news". Much better.

Lol, gotcha--we shouldn't hold news sources accountable for accurate information. You do realize that honesty in reporting matters, right? This image supposedly deeply affected a whole host of people, and was used in many news sources...It had a deep impact, and as it turns out, she wasn't even separated from her mother. It's bad journalism, period. More to the point, posters of any and all political stripes in this thread deserved to know about this because it's relevant and true. But sure, next time I find something true and relevant to another thread that one side of the debate would be hostile towards, I'll make sure to exclude it on pain of being accused of finger-pointing, rather than actively contribute to our shared knowledge.

Sure. Shameless for urging a quick EO order instead of a fairly lengthy legislative procedure. How dare he.

Blah blah--I'm sure partisan politics had zero effect on this decision, and Schumer, the angel that he is, only had everyone's best interests at heart. Yeah ok, doesn't change the fact that Schumer and the democrats struck down what should, in an ideal world, be a bipartisan agreement. His "poison-pill" comments in the article only further elucidate the idea that it was a partisan decision on the part of the democrats--namely that he implied they couldn't be trusted. American politics will surely keep getting better and better with less bipartisan cooperation(and that seems to be the trend in both congress and among voters).

[Aexodus]

Yes, there are good reasons to do so. Abusive families, families that aren't families, criminal families, etc. Having a zero-tolerance policy for immigrants isn't one of them. Trump carelessly decided to crack down on immigration

Let me fix that for you

Yes, there are good reasons to do so. Abusive families, families that aren't families, criminal families, etc. Having a zero-tolerance policy for illegal immigrants isn't one of them. Trump carelessly decided to crack down on illegal immigration

Trump's policies of automatically separating families at the point of entry leaves little nuance.

Hold up. There are designated ports of entry, which these people didn’t go to. No one is being separated at official and legal points of entry without good reason (abusive guardians, etc)

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm glad to see you don't deny it. Sure no jails, if the alternative is that we must separate families regardless of what law mandates it. You know, no matter how inhumane, evil, or twisted that law is.

How is the law in question inhumane or twisted?

[Love Mountain]

That doesn't make sense. What is stopping every single illegal alien caught from doing that and avoiding expulsion then?

They don't know their rights. Additionally, many are simply denied entry.

How is the law in question inhumane or twisted?

Separating families without a good reason is inhumane.

Let me fix that for you

You didn't change anything. Being an illegal immigrant doesn't make you a sub human.

Hold up. There are designated ports of entry, which these people didn’t go to. No one is being separated at official and legal points of entry without good reason (abusive guardians, etc)

And? They're not being redirected to proper ports of entry. They're being detained.

You’re entitled to your opinion about trafficking, but what about deterring illegal immigration which I also mentioned?

I've made my views on illegal immigration abundantly clear.

Well for a start, asylum seekers seek asylum in the first safe country they come to.

Second, just to be clear, you’re not saying that claiming asylum should absolve someone of any criminal offenses they commit?

No, and before you even start. Illegal immigration is not what I would consider a "crime".

Lol, gotcha--we shouldn't hold news sources accountable for accurate information. You do realize that honesty in reporting matters, right? This image supposedly deeply affected a whole host of people, and was used in many news sources...It had a deep impact, and as it turns out, she wasn't even separated from her mother. It's bad journalism, period. More to the point, posters of any and all political stripes in this thread deserved to know about this because it's relevant and true. But sure, next time I find something true and relevant to another thread that one side of the debate would be hostile towards, I'll make sure to exclude it on pain of being accused of finger-pointing, rather than actively contribute to our shared knowledge.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is simply more hand waving. Had you posted an article that showed details on the immigration issue and how Trump is being misrepresented in the media on this issue, I'd pay attention. But it isn't, this is just meaningless chatter over irrelevant details.

Blah blah--I'm sure partisan politics had zero effect on this decision, and Schumer, the angel that he is, only had everyone's best interests at heart. Yeah ok, doesn't change the fact that Schumer and the democrats struck down what should, in an ideal world, be a bipartisan agreement. His "poison-pill" comments in the article only further elucidate the idea that it was a partisan decision on the part of the democrats--namely that he implied they couldn't be trusted. American politics will surely keep getting better and better with less bipartisan cooperation(and that seems to be the trend in both congress and among voters).

Political posturing is irrelevant in this matter. Trump caused this issue in the first place. For one thing, there was no crisis that the "zero-tolerance" policy addressed. His EO is instant in its effect, legislative proceedings often take days and on controversial issues like these it would probably take weeks to decide on the wording and issues that the bill would tackle. Chuck Schumer is completely correct in wanting Trump to fix the issue especially when we consider the tools Trump has at his disposal. I find your "disgust" laughable, as you focus on the supposed "liberal sins" on this issue while ignoring the elephant in the room, that Trump caused yet another idiotic fiasco.

[Alastor]

They don't know their rights. Additionally, many are simply denied entry.

No way. Too simplistic of an explanation. Perhaps it is true for illegal aliens that have not yet been caught that they can request asylum, as long as the year mentioned in your link hasn't passed I assume. That in itself would be contentious. But if arrested for it I really can't see how it makes sense that they would be allowed to just say "oops I'm an asylum seeker actually, please don't expel me for the crime you just arrested me for". That's making a mockery of the law. Also to be denied entry they have to not have already entered. So if you mean they are at a port of entry that's another story altogether. They haven't yet been caught entering illegally.

[Heathen Hammer]

Separating families without a good reason is inhumane.

They entered the country illegally. They didn't go through the same process legal immigrants go, and as a result cause this to happen to themselves.

[Love Mountain]

No way. Too simplistic of an explanation. Perhaps it is true for illegal aliens that have not yet been caught that they can request asylum, as long as the year mentioned in your link hasn't passed I assume. That in itself would be contentious. But if arrested for it I really can't see how it makes sense that they would be allowed to just say "oops I'm an asylum seeker actually, please don't expel me for the crime you just arrested me for". That's making a mockery of the law. Also to be denied entry they have to not have already entered. So if you mean they are at a port of entry that's another story altogether. They haven't yet been caught entering illegally.

It is that simple. Not everyone knows how to apply for asylum, not many are sure they will be granted asylum, not many are even eligible for asylum. Being an economic migrant doesn't mean you qualify for asylum. In addition to that, why would you risk deportation?

They entered the country illegally. They didn't go through the same process legal immigrants go, and as a result cause this to happen to themselves.

Nope. Still not civilized to break apart families.

[Alastor]

It is that simple. Not everyone knows how to apply for asylum, not many are sure they will be granted asylum, not many are even eligible for asylum. Being an economic migrant doesn't mean you qualify for asylum. In addition to that, why would you risk deportation?

According to his:
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/r...d-applications
You can only apply for asylum as an illegal alien, if you are not currently in removal proceedings. And if arrested for being in the US illegally, the government initiates removal proceedings against you. Perhaps the law could afford to be clearer, somehow provides room for manoeuvre, or perhaps the law is yet again inconsistently enforced. But it makes perfect sense not being able to use the asylum card willy-nilly if already arrested for entering illegally.

Now that this is a bit more cleared up. The next question is why would an asylum request. One that came after you got arrested for entering illegally and its merit hasn't been determined yet. Why would such a request automatically absolve you from the criminal proceedings associated with your crime? Get you out of jail and allowed entry? Wouldn't it make more sense that you would be detained, just like all other caught illegal aliens at least until you can prove your case? In fact wouldn't it make sense that you would still be punished for your crime, even if afterwards granted asylum?

[Aexodus]

Sure. Shameless for urging a quick EO order instead of a fairly lengthy legislative procedure. How dare he.

But would legislative change not be better in the long run to actually solve the problem, instead of an executive order we don’t even know is legal yet, that can simply be reversed with a stroke of a pen by the next president. Without legislation, illegal immigration and separations will just continue for another 40 years.m

No, and before you even start. Illegal immigration is not what I would consider a "crime".

So just to be clear, you think unauthorised crossing of the border shouldn’t be an infraction, never mind the misdemenour it currently is?

You seem to want to solve illegal immigration by decriminalising a crime?

[Alastor]

But would legislative change not be better in the long run to actually solve the problem

It most certainly would be.

[Love Mountain]

According to his:
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/r...d-applications
You can only apply for asylum as an illegal alien, if you are not currently in removal proceedings. And if arrested for being in the US illegally, the government initiates removal proceedings against you. Perhaps the law could afford to be clearer, somehow provides room for manoeuvre, or perhaps the law is yet again inconsistently enforced. But it makes perfect sense not being able to use the asylum card willy-nilly if already arrested for entering illegally.

You can apply for asylum if "the government initiates removal proceedings against you". You can do it at your court hearing. Obviusly if they're already in the process of deporting you, you can't do that, but that wasn't your question. The vast majority of illegals aren't being deported.

But would legislative change not be better in the long run to actually solve the problem, instead of an executive order we don’t even know is legal yet, that can simply be reversed with a stroke of a pen by the next president. Without legislation, illegal immigration and separations will just continue for another 40 years.m



So just to be clear, you think unauthorised crossing of the border shouldn’t be an infraction, never mind the misdemenour it currently is?

You seem to want to solve illegal immigration by decriminalising a crime?

A legislative solution is an immigration reform.