There is no law that mandates it, this is purely the White Houses position on immigration. We can't summarily drop asylum seekers on the other side of the border so they have to go through the courts. Typically this is done by an immigration judge. However, under Trump, undocumented immigrants are being sent to federal courts where children and parents aren't allowed to be kept together in federal jail. Instead, they get shuffled off to the bureaus like Border Patrol and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which are not only ill-equipped to handle the rate of children they are tasked with fostering but have been accused of abuse.
It's pointless cruelty, and while I'd like to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that his ideal solution is that we simply dropped these people back off in Mexico after picking them up, or detained them with their children, the fact that he would so brazenly lie about this being on the Democrats tells me he is at least okay with that cruelty helping his "tough on immigration" stance.
They didn't take your jobs, those jobs were shipped overseas by employers looking to save money. Those jobs were replaced by machinery and computers to save on costs. The immigrants didn't take away your jobs, the employers did.
I like how you just ignored this post:
I should also point out that, while being caught illegally entering the country is a crime, simply being here without documentation is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.
This "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" mentality fails to recognize that this isn't how we treat other civil violations. Not even close. This is a violation of our own internal rules.
Trump could shit on his own desk and call for the FBI to find the democrat that did it.
maybe I should be a political cartoonist, shit sounds easy in this day and age
If by "reason" you mean
ruthless
egotistical
assholish
sociopathic
orwellian
narcissism
then yes
saying "you broke the law, in a completely nonviolent way, without stealing anything or putting anyone in danger, therefore any punishment you get is fine, eighth amendment be damned" is "reason".
I've never understood the 'immigrants stealing jobs' mentality. You'd probably have to be a real fuckin loser to be at risk of losing your job to someone who, in all likelihood, has few or no skills and doesn't speak the language fluently. If your job is going anywhere, it's going to southeast asia.
It's also really weird and contradictory because the same policy-makers and conservative spaces also tell people who complain about lack of job opportunities to suck it up and pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Their reasoning basically being that its the fault of the poor/jobless that they are poor/jobless.
If someone complains about lack of government programs to provide financial assistance or opportunities for people looking for work, they are told they should stop blaming others for their own failure.
If someone complains about immigrants taking jobs, they are told that they're absolutely right to blame others for their own failure.
It's basically a 'get out of jail free card' for personal accountability. If something bad happens to somebody else, it's always their fault. If something bad happens to me it's still their fault.
By the supposed logic of (economic) conservatism and the free market, if an immigrant takes your job, it's your fault and you should pick yourself up by your bootstraps and stop being a lazy mooch on society by complaining about things. However, in reality it's a different set of rules for me and you.
The pigs/federal pigs can't have decent people seeing their Kevin Spacey vacation home storage facility.
Or maybe there's a legitimate reason why monstrous thoughts like those are a minority.
Ive literally had an argument with a dude who thinks like this, I can't understand living with the level of cognitive dissonance on display.
I ask him why there are no jobs, he says Immigrants steal them all.
I ask him if unemployed people should receive welfare, he says they are all workshy and lazy and should starve if they aren't prepared to do hard graft for their dinner.
I point out that if immigrants really were stealing all the jobs, people wouldn't have any opportunity to avoid unemployment, he responds that "there's always something they could do if they got off their arse and looked"
So immigrants aren't a problem, because there are always jobs for those that really want them?- "no, they steal all the British jobs and i can't understand them when they are behind the counter".
It's like the fucking spongebob squarepants sketch where the dumb fuck starfish drops his wallet.
I've yet to see a single member of Cult 45 respond to this point when challenged with it.They are inventing justifications for brutality that simply are not supported by reality, They don't even change their justifications after being confronted on the inconsistency -- they just flat out refuse to acknowledge it.
It's a basic alt right tactic, never defend your claims and never respond to counter arguments, always be on the attack with even more extraordinary claims.
The reason why they never engage with people is because that is never their goal. Their only goal is to do nothing but shout their ideas at people and hope someone out there agrees with it. They aren't looking to argue with people and have their ideas challenged. They just want a soapbox they can shout from in the hope some idiot out there will listen.
It's never worth trying to engage with people like that because they will never attempt to engage with you back in an honest manner. They'll either ignore you, attack your character in some way or intentionally misread your arguments in an attempt to frame you in a negative light.
I hope when the Trump hysteria finally ends the absolute asspain this post has caused will go down in the annals in Facepunch history
I've talked with you many times before, you're present in just about every thread where I argue against the forum consensus and generally behave well. There's no need to smear what my positions are.
Don't forget the part step where they get pissed off if anyone dares trying to use the same tactics against them.
It's just tactics for radicals in general, as outlined in rules for radicals.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/17/collins-says-she-opposes-family-separations-at-border-but-calls-democratic-bill-to-stop-them-too-broad/
I'm very tired of people thinking they can have their cake and eat it too.
I've stopped looking at it as having their cake and eating it too. I've started seeing it as thinly-veiled lies and intepreting statements such as what was given in that headline as 'Yes, it's terrible what we're doing to these kids - but it's necessary and so I support it.'
More shallow words from the GOP.
Really it just reaffirms my belief that even moderate republicans are bad.
Senators who are willing to hold on to power at any cost are what's bad.
Trump is a disgusting human being. These words mean naught anymore.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Might as well just tear the fucking thing down.
The issue is with the Flores law's forbidding of holding accompanied children more than 20 days, so ultimately because asylum claims take time to process we are forced to either release the family into the country in the meantime, which is not an option, or hold the adults to ensure speedy processing and accountability while handing the children over to HHS to preferably be given to relatives.
Trump's zero-tolerance policy entails that seeking asylum does not grant you free pass to the country while your claim is being adjudicated and you disappear, certainly not when seekers cross the border illegally rather than coming through ports of entry to make a claim. At that point, speculation of being an economic migrant is warranted, prosecution should follow, as does deportation in a win-win situation for family integrity and respect for our laws.
If you want this fixed, the answer isn't to not enforce the border. That's verifiably [1] what Americans do not want. The solution is to adjust the Flores law to permit accompanied minors being held for more than 20 days while asylum seekers who make claims at a port of entry are kept with them in family shelters.
Anything you'd likely propose outside of this is ideological excess rather than genuine interest in reconciling border security and immigration reform with keeping families together.
The issue is a President who has put into effect a policy which didn't exist before, doesn't need to exist now, and which wasn't deployed throughout Obama's presidency where he was practically flinging people out of the country by rapid-reloading trebuchet.
Obama's solution was to turn them away. That solution is superior to this one if only because it is less cruel.
Yeah stop fighting this dumb cultural battle of yours tempcon, I'm glad you finally agree with me on something.
Enforcing the law?
Looking at the numbers from inauguration day until now, I disagree.
He's confused on the origin of the Flores law, amending which has been included in the draft GOP immigration bill. I've seen criticism that it doesn't resolve the issue, but also statements of further work being done on that front.
That's the double-edged sword of executive orders, you'd have to have a pretty naive view of humanity to not expect the risk. They can be revoked by the next administration and have their continued existence be made part of a bargain, one which frankly makes sense. The diversity visa lottery, for example, is stupid and legitimately without a meritorious basis.
Well, not exactly. What Trump is addressing by detaining illegally entering adults for prosecution is the in absentia rates for never detained or released aliens which has drastically risen from 24% to 39% between 2012 and 2016.
The only problem with this is, due to the Flores law, that detaining them means separating them from their children. That's not a reason to not detain them, though. That's a reason to change the law to permit holding the family together in a shelter for either the duration of criminal proceedings or the asylum process.
Why don't we just have them go through ports of entry, if they really insist on not staying in Mexico while waiting on their case, rather than halting flows or throwing money outside the country?
Nobody said that's the problem though.
Enforcing the law
Cite the law in question. Source your claim that it's a law, this policy which Trump has begun.
He's confused on the origin of the Flores law, amending which has been included in the draft GOP immigration bill.
The same bill he summarily rejected, demonstrating that it's not about that law.
Why don't we just have them go through ports of entry, if they really insist on not staying in Mexico while waiting on their case, rather than halting flows or throwing money outside the country?
Must people who seek Asylum in the United States come across our borders through a 'valid port of entry'? Further, do they have to submit forms in order to seek Asylum in advance of their arrival to the United States? Yes or no.
That's the double-edged sword of executive orders, you'd have to have a pretty naive view of humanity to not expect the risk.
And you must have a terrifying view of reality if you just accept that as 'one of the risks'.
Horseshit, he knows what he is doing. His own cabinet members have outed it as their policy. Trump is a big boy, you don't need to carry his water for him.
Late because people have been dumping on him for 3 pages. but how has no one directly addressed this insanely fascistic sentence? The way America treats their correctional system and criminals with a past is just deplorable. How can a single country be wrong in so many sectors, it's embarrassing. Is this person real?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
