200,000 Salvadorans may be forced to leave the U.S. as Trump ends immigration protection
33 replies, posted
[quote]The Trump administration has canceled the provisional residency permits of about 200,000 Salvadorans who have lived in the country since at least 2001, leaving them vulnerable to deportation, according a copy of a Department of Homeland Security announcement sent to lawmakers Monday.[/quote]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-end-provisional-residency-for-200000-salvadorans/2018/01/08/badfde90-f481-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_tps-1006am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b9bcaffef1ec[/url]
It sounds like they did exactly what they were supposed to do with the program: the US offered temporary residency because El Salvador experienced a terrible earthquake and many were left destitute, the country has now recovered, and the temporary residency is being ended.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035365]It sounds like they did exactly what they were supposed to do with the program: the US offered temporary residency because El Salvador experienced a terrible earthquake and many were left destitute, the country has now recovered, and the temporary residency is being ended.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but these people have settled here now and are likely contributing and hopefully getting along fairly well. There's a reason they're probably still here. Just uprooting people and deporting them is both costly, unnecessary and inconvenient. Especially a second time.
What a waste of money, resources, and manpower it would be to deport them. God that is a lot of people and so far I haven't heard of any endemic problems in their communities, so I don't even remotely see a reason to enforce this.
What a miserable administration, good lord.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;53035387]Yeah but these people have settled here now and are likely contributing and hopefully getting along fairly well. There's a reason they're probably still here. Just uprooting people and deporting them is both costly, unnecessary and inconvenient. Especially a second time.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a problem with the law in question.
It's been 17+ years for many of them, they've made families including 190,000 US-born children, and a third of them are homeowners.
This calls for a more nuanced and reasonable solution, not just a simple "times up, get out!". It's up to Congress now.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035437]Sounds like a problem with the law in question.[/QUOTE]
What a weasely response to an ethics question. That's an awfully convenient way to avoid exposing your actual beliefs to criticism.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035365]It sounds like they did exactly what they were supposed to do with the program: the US offered temporary residency because El Salvador experienced a terrible earthquake and many were left destitute, the country has now recovered, and the temporary residency is being ended.[/QUOTE]
Ya and now they're being forced to uproot their lives, sell businesses, property, and quit jobs because congress designed a terrible program and Trump is a white supremacist
Oh and El Salvador is a pretty dangerous place as well.
Also as another side note, while these people would certainly qualify for legal residency, this program expressly forbids it.
This is pretty much on par with japanese internment and Operation Wetback in the 40s and 50s
[QUOTE=bitches;53035452]What a weasely response to an ethics question. That's an awfully convenient way to avoid exposing your actual beliefs to criticism.[/QUOTE]
It's how our system works. If you want to blame someone, then blame the legislators who wrote the law, blame the legislators who didn't change the law, etc. Don't blame the person executing the law in the way it was intended to be executed.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with what's happening, but at least blame those at fault.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035474]It's how our system works. If you want to blame someone, then blame the legislators who wrote the law, blame the legislators who didn't change the law, etc. Don't blame the person executing the law in the way it was intended to be executed.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with what's happening, but at least blame those at fault.[/QUOTE]
Following orders is never an acceptable substitute for having your own morals. It's what people say when they support it but don't want to admit it.
That's not to say that society should be anarchy: it's the reality of human decision, in a society built on debating ethics to reach a common agreement, and you clearly agree.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035474]It's how our system works. If you want to blame someone, then blame the legislators who wrote the law, blame the legislators who didn't change the law, etc. Don't blame the person executing the law in the way it was intended to be executed.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with what's happening, but at least blame those at fault.[/QUOTE]
Ya just like DACA isn't being used as a political football to pay for a wall that we apparently are not going to pay for. This is playing with peoples lives to build a wall and appease a bunch of xenophobes
[QUOTE=bitches;53035484]Following orders is never an acceptable substitute for having your own morals. It's what people say when they support it but don't want to admit it.
That's not to say that society should be anarchy: it's the reality of human decision, in a society built on debating ethics to reach a common agreement, and you clearly agree.[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear: do you care at all about the separation of powers or should the president just legislate from the executive's office?
Morally? I don't think there's anything morally wrong with offering temporary respite to people and then expecting them to go back home when the disaster in question has passed. Giving people temporary residence doesn't obligate you to give them permanent residence.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;53035485]Ya just like DACA isn't being used as a political football to pay for a wall that we apparently are not going to pay for. This is playing with peoples lives to build a wall and appease a bunch of xenophobes[/QUOTE]
You say that like I support Trump doing it. I think the wall is a stupid idea anyway. It's probably the least effective way to deal with the issues we have.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035495]Just to be clear: do you care at all about the separation of powers or should the president just legislate from the executive's office?
Morally? I don't think there's anything morally wrong with offering temporary respite to people and then expecting them to go back home when the disaster in question has passed.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
You say that like I support Trump doing it. I think the wall is a stupid idea anyway. It's probably the least effective way to deal with the issues we have.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for clarifying that you have no perspective on what it's like to build a life and family in another country, nor the economic impact of those individuals. Maybe next you'll confirm that it's just because they weren't American-born.
It doesn't matter what reasons we initially let them in for, if they're productive citizens now it's fuckin stupid to get rid of them.
[QUOTE=bitches;53035505]Thank you for clarifying that you have no perspective on what it's like to build a life and family in another country, nor the economic impact of those individuals. Maybe next you'll confirm that it's just because they weren't American-born.[/QUOTE]
I would have zero issue with congress legislating, whether this one or the democrats when they were in charge, to allow them to stay.
My issue is with you demanding that the president just do whatever the hell he wants.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035519]I would have zero issue with congress legislating, whether this one or the democrats when they were in charge, to allow them to stay.
My issue is with you demanding that the president just do whatever the hell he wants.[/QUOTE]
You're still acting like this is a discussion of legislature, when my point is to argue your personal beliefs given that beliefs like them are what caused this situation.
You said:
[quote]Morally? I don't think there's anything morally wrong with offering temporary respite to people and then expecting them to go back home when the disaster in question has passed.[/quote]
It doesn't matter if you wouldn't mind the legislature going differently than your preference. What I want is for you to justify those beliefs against the counterpoints brought up in this thread.
[QUOTE=bitches;53035531]It doesn't matter if you wouldn't mind the legislature going differently than your preference. What I want is for you to justify those beliefs against the counterpoints brought up in this thread.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's immoral to provide temporary help, whether that's for natural disasters, refugees, etc. You seem to think that it's immoral to provide temporary help on the basis that it would be better for those people to live here permanently. The problem with that is that a billion+ people on the planet would be better off if given permanent residency in the US. So unless you're calling for us to have totally open borders, then I don't see how the argument that it's better for them to stay is relevant.
If this wasn't such a long time I'd say deport them
but once nearly 2 decades goes buy that's a lifetime ago. Bit too late.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035569]I don't think it's immoral to provide temporary help, whether that's for natural disasters, refugees, etc. You seem to think that it's immoral to provide temporary help on the basis that it would be better for those people to live here permanently. The problem with that is that a billion+ people on the planet would be better off if given permanent residency in the US. So unless you're calling for us to have totally open borders, then I don't see how the argument that it's better for them to stay is relevant.[/QUOTE]
What do you define as temporary, and to you does there ever come a time when it is immoral to deport them? If almost 20 years (leading to thoroughly established immigrants and their families) isn't, then when? Can you even imagine what it's like to be those people?
[QUOTE=bitches;53035620]What do you define as temporary, and to you does there ever come a time when it is immoral to deport them? If almost 20 years (leading to thoroughly established immigrants and their families) isn't, then when? Can you even imagine what it's like to be those people?[/QUOTE]
Those people knew it was temporary. They could have gone back on their own at any point. The fact that we allowed to stay longer than necessary doesn't suddenly obligate us into allowing them to stay forever. We are only "deporting" them if they refuse to leave like they agreed to in the first place.
Let's say I owed you money, but I'm in a bad spot financially. So you let me delay my payments for a year so that I can get my financial house in order. It only takes me a couple months, but I still don't pay anything for the entire year. After that year passes, you tell me that it's time to start making payments, but I say that because you decided to wait, it would be immoral for you to start collecting now.
The point being that me deciding to get by for as long as you allowed doesn't make it immoral for you to demand that I fulfill my side of the obligation. In the same way, all the people who we offered to help knew that this was a temporary situation, but the Obama administration decided to let them stay longer than the agreed upon term. The fact that the US has given them more than was agreed upon originally doesn't mean we are morally obligated to totally forgoes the original agreement. They could have gone back, on their own, at any point in time.
If the congress thinks it's good for the country and/or something we ought to do, then they should modify the law in order to let them stay, but I don't think it's immoral for the president to execute the law as it was written either.
Isn't it interesting that both the Bush and Obama administration renewed the TPS every 18 months?
I don't like white washing Bush but it really shows how low the United States is going.
17 years. There's gonna be a lot of children left without parents if their parents don't get citizenship in time, huh?
Is El Salvador going to handle potentially 200,000 extra people coming in at once?
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
From the BBC:
[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-42613178"]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-42613178[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]He (El Salvador Foreign Minister Hugo Martinez) noted that due to the US practice of granting citizenship to babies born inside the United States, there were now nearly 200,000 US citizens who were born to parents who now may face deportation.[/B][/QUOTE]
All of those 200,000 US citizens are minors. How many of them will lose their parents?
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035650]Those people knew it was temporary. They could have gone back on their own at any point. The fact that we allowed to stay longer than necessary doesn't suddenly obligate us into allowing them to stay forever. We are only "deporting" them if they refuse to leave like they agreed to in the first place.
Let's say I owed you money, but I'm in a bad spot financially. So you let me delay my payments for a year so that I can get my financial house in order. It only takes me a couple months, but I still don't pay anything for the entire year. After that year passes, you tell me that it's time to start making payments, but I say that because you decided to wait, it would be immoral for you to start collecting now.
The point being that me deciding to get by for as long as you allowed doesn't make it immoral for you to demand that I fulfill my side of the obligation. In the same way, all the people who we offered to help knew that this was a temporary situation, but the Obama administration decided to let them stay longer than the agreed upon term. The fact that the US has given them more than was agreed upon originally doesn't mean we are morally obligated to totally forgoes the original agreement. They could have gone back, on their own, at any point in time.
If the congress thinks it's good for the country and/or something we ought to do, then they should modify the law in order to let them stay, but I don't think it's immoral for the president to execute the law as it was written either.[/QUOTE]
I'm just more concerned with what the outcome is. The rules/guidelines around the situation may very well be ineffective, or cause more damage down the road.
There isn't a reason to adhere to a bad plan just because that was the plan. Kicking them out now will likely have costs higher than just letting them stay.
[QUOTE=bitches;53035452]What a weasely response to an ethics question. That's an awfully convenient way to avoid exposing your actual beliefs to criticism.[/QUOTE]
It's also true, though. There is a MAJOR problem with the law if it allows this to happen. After living here, contributing to society, making a home for themselves for 17 years I'd say they'd earned full citizenship outright, and instead of giving them the boot, the law [I]should[/I] grant them official US citizenship.
He probably didn't mean it that way, given his posting history, but I do agree that it's a problem with the law. The law is written to do the wrong thing in situations like this and it needs to be rewritten to grant these people the citizenship they've rightfully earned by being honest, hardworking Americans for nearly two decades.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035650]Those people knew it was temporary. They could have gone back on their own at any point. The fact that we allowed to stay longer than necessary doesn't suddenly obligate us into allowing them to stay forever. We are only "deporting" them if they refuse to leave like they agreed to in the first place.
Let's say I owed you money, but I'm in a bad spot financially. So you let me delay my payments for a year so that I can get my financial house in order. It only takes me a couple months, but I still don't pay anything for the entire year. After that year passes, you tell me that it's time to start making payments, but I say that because you decided to wait, it would be immoral for you to start collecting now.
The point being that me deciding to get by for as long as you allowed doesn't make it immoral for you to demand that I fulfill my side of the obligation. In the same way, all the people who we offered to help knew that this was a temporary situation, but the Obama administration decided to let them stay longer than the agreed upon term. The fact that the US has given them more than was agreed upon originally doesn't mean we are morally obligated to totally forgoes the original agreement. They could have gone back, on their own, at any point in time.
If the congress thinks it's good for the country and/or something we ought to do, then they should modify the law in order to let them stay, but I don't think it's immoral for the president to execute the law as it was written either.[/QUOTE]
The difference here, and why your analogy falls flat on its face, is that these people are contributing to society. Hell they probably contribute more than either of us do. A third of them are homeowners, nearly all of them are raising families. They have become Americans in all manners but official paperwork.
Far as I'm concerned, they've earned the right to [B]legally[/B] call themselves American. They've done more for this country than millions of natural born Americans ever will and they've done nothing to earn deporation except fall on the wrong side of a poorly written law.
It would be immoral to execute the law as it is currently written. The correct course of action is to extend it another 18 months so none of them get deported, then spend those 18 months re-writing the law such that citizenship would be granted to people who make a home for themselves and contribute positively to society in the way these folk have done. America was built on the backs of millions of immigrants from all walks of life moving here for a better future, it's the very cornerstone of our society(Or it used to be, anyway, before extreme conservatism took hold), and these Salvadorans have realized the [I]true[/I] American dream: They're living better now than they ever could have in El Salvador. They have found safety, security, they have found comfort, good jobs, steady income, more delicious food than they know what to do with. They have it MADE, something that just does not happen in the part of the world they came from. Hell, they're living better than I am!
Zero logical reason to break up families, livelihoods, throw them back over the border into some war torn second world fuckhole.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035474]It's how our system works. If you want to blame someone, then blame the legislators who wrote the law, blame the legislators who didn't change the law, etc. Don't blame the person executing the law in the way it was intended to be executed.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with what's happening, but at least blame those at fault.[/QUOTE]
I'll blame both parties, because without either one the bad thing doesn't get done.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035650]If the congress thinks it's good for the country and/or something we ought to do, then they should modify the law in order to let them stay, but I don't think it's immoral for the president to execute the law as it was written either.[/QUOTE]
A republican dominated congress won't do it whether or not it's good for the country and you know it. They care more about image than data and results and know very well that their base will lose fervor and eat them alive if they refuse. Just like on global warming, and drug policy, and education, and practically every other conceivable issue.
Hope you're ready for all the kids whose parents are gonna' get deported straining the social services, lol. Sounds like a great way to create an orphan crisis.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
The problem with "Well it's the law, if there's a problem with the law it should be fixed" Is that there's a party in power currently that is diametrically opposed to fixing the law.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035474]It's how our system works. If you want to blame someone, then blame the legislators who wrote the law, blame the legislators who didn't change the law, etc. Don't blame the person executing the law in the way it was intended to be executed.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with what's happening, but at least blame those at fault.[/QUOTE]
I feel like it's fair to criticize the executive on how they enforce those laws, regardless of how they're written?
Technically the world would be at peace if everyone in the world was killed, no?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53036988]I feel like it's fair to criticize the executive on how they enforce those laws, regardless of how they're written?
Technically the world would be at peace if everyone in the world was killed, no?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't seem to be a "how" question. These people are here on a temporary basis. To make it permanent wouldn't be enforcing the law differently. It would be totally ignoring the law and allowing permanent immigration that wasn't allowed by congress.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=froztshock;53036911]A republican dominated congress won't do it whether or not it's good for the country and you know it. They care more about image than data and results and know very well that their base will lose fervor and eat them alive if they refuse. Just like on global warming, and drug policy, and education, and practically every other conceivable issue.
Hope you're ready for all the kids whose parents are gonna' get deported straining the social services, lol. Sounds like a great way to create an orphan crisis.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
The problem with "Well it's the law, if there's a problem with the law it should be fixed" Is that there's a party in power currently that is diametrically opposed to fixing the law.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to apologize for arguing that the constitution is relevant and that we ought to have the congress pass law. If there are negative effects, then the blame falls on the congress: the one who made the law, the one who failed to change the law, and the one who continues it today.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037027]It doesn't seem to be a "how" question. These people are here on a temporary basis. To make it permanent wouldn't be enforcing the law differently. It would be totally ignoring the law and allowing permanent immigration that wasn't allowed by congress.[/QUOTE]
Trump could have renewed it like every president before him. This wouldn't be allowing them to stay forever, nor would it be ignoring the law.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53037041]Trump could have renewed it like every president before him. This wouldn't be allowing them to stay forever, nor would it be ignoring the law.[/QUOTE]
There are three stated reasons for granting TPS (Temporary Protected Status) in the law:
1) Ongoing armed conflict.
2) Environmental disaster
3) Other extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent nationals from returning to their home
If one of these aren't present, then renewing the TPS would be equivalent to ignoring the law and just doing whatever you want.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53037065]There are three stated reasons for granting TPS (Temporary Protected Status) in the law:
1) Ongoing armed conflict.
2) Environmental disaster
3) Other extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent nationals from returning to their home
If one of these aren't present, then renewing the TPS would be equivalent to ignoring the law and just doing whatever you want.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0302-muggah-el-salvador-crime-20160302-story,amp.html[/url]
[Quote]It's official: San Salvador is the murder capital of the world[/quote]
Weird how both presidents bush and obama were able to justify extensions...
[QUOTE=Sableye;53037078][url]https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0302-muggah-el-salvador-crime-20160302-story,amp.html[/url]
Weird how both presidents bush and obama were able to justify extensions...[/QUOTE]
As I said, making up justifications that clearly weren't intended by the law is equivalent to making law. I don't think even you would disagree that previous presidents have done exactly that in the past. So to point out previous presidents who've had justifications doesn't do much to show that those were actually intended by the law.
With that said, the argument you're making right now isn't even one that you support. You think they should stay permanently. So even if El Salvador were the more peaceful and wonderful place on the planet, you still wouldn't want us to deport these people. You want the law ignored in the most basic sense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.