The punishment is completely unproportional. Downright evil, pretty much. Would you be saying this if you could get a death sentence for jaywalking too?
What a horrible post. You didn't address my arguments at all. You managed to move the topic away from the Flores law, illegal immigration numbers, and the in absentia issue while backing away from the claim that Obama had everything in order and Trump is just being mean. What you have left is the following stalling:
I'm not citing the law on illegal entry, or what the executive branch does lol. Are you doing your thing again where you pretend to be really stupid and ask for a source for non-controversial claims to derail the debate?
Trump now says he supports moderate and hardline GOP immigration..
Yes, else they can be judged as economic migrants part of a surging wave of illegal immigration. Asylum seekers can be readily determined by their steady numbers through ports of entry where they can make a claim, then either wait in Mexico or be held as a family following the GOP's immigration bill.
There is no argument against dealing with illegal crossings and the tendency for people during adjudication to disappear into the country.
Because your arguments are ancillary, the policy at hand is new and is the reason those laws are being brought to bear to begin with. You're trying to make the topic something it's not because you can't defend the root cause of the whole thing, which is this new policy.
You're claiming the 'reason why all this is happening' is due to the Flores law. That is inaccurate. All this is happening due to Trump's new policy. If families were not being ordered to be separated, they would not be, because they would not all be treated as criminals universally. This is the policy in question, right here:
"The Attorney General directed United States Attorneys on the Southwest Border to prosecute all amenable adults who illegally enter the country, including those accompanied by their children, for 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), illegal entry.
"Children whose parents are referred for prosecution will be placed with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)."
Source: DHS Website
Crossing the border without authorization has always been illegal. Prosecuting anyone who does so for any reason is a new policy because we have expressly told refugees 'we don't care how you get here, just get here' in the past. This brings me to
Yes, else they can be judged as economic migrants part of a surging wave of illegal immigration.
Demonstrating that you are not aware of how people are meant and encouraged to seek Asylum in this country. You are arguing from ignorance, likely assuming that whatever Nielsen says about this subject is the correct interpretation (though ignoring key parts of it). The correct answer was 'no'.
"For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous Administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law."
Taking his advice, however, is a poor idea given that the man is presently lying about the policy to begin with:
"We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period," Nielsen tweeted.
Prior to this administration there was no concept that Asylum seekers must 'go to ports of entry' to seek Asylum. It was instead simply more or less a factor in their application to seek Asylum status. Otherwise you are expecting people running for their lives to take the time to bring a map, understand the local language, and orderly present themselves at a port of entry - which is a farce. So long as they present themselves within a year to USCIS and file for Asylum they may enter the country through any means; having crossed the border illegally is not a stated factor on your form for seeking Asylum within the United States.
Trump now says he supports the bill he just rejected
Call me when he actually settles his mind on the legal matter. From all other points of reference, Trump does not support those sorts of policies because he is not 'soft on immigrants/refugees'.
Their policy is to end a loophole that allowed immigrant families to be released after detainment.
Again, you're demonstrating ignorance of the policy in question while you try every attempt to dodge that the root cause is the policy in question and that you are either willfully ignorant or mindfully malicious in your presentation of facts.
It's not really a loophole but this is tangential to my main point that it isn't confusion on Trump's part and I can't understand why you would give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows what he is doing, the people who advise him know what he is doing, lets be real about this. There is no need to muddy the waters.
Why is the middle ground your side getting almost everything they want? Why is it okay for the white nativist working class to fight for and be politically active for their ideology on borders and race but not okay for anyone else?
I'm glad you've just made a full circle and are now agreeing with me that the policy is just to enforce what is on the books, after trying to obfuscate just a few hours ago.
That's not how logic works. The reason families are split is not because Trump chose to prosecute the adults, it's because we are not allowed to hold children longer than twenty days which also applies to asylum applications, since they take time that can easily go over twenty days. We can do the former and amend the law to the prevent the latter, while at the same time asylum applicants can arrive through ports of entry if they are not illegal economic immigrants who have no real asylum case.
I get it, you just don't like this, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. You seem to think the problem is the former since that's all that changed, not that it shined a light on issues with our laws that force us to choose between prosecuting illegal entry and family integrity. This is not logic on your part, it's ideology. In your view, I guess we should just do nothing in order to avoid complications within the law and just let anyone illegally enter then be released into the country pending criminal or asylum-related adjudication.
I gave you evidence for this being an issue, citing illegal immigration patterns fluctuating with Trump's inauguration that suggest widespread belief his border security claims were just bluffing and skyrocketing in absentia rates for immigration decisions. You've given me nothing in return, other a desperate attempt to prove that we cannot reconcile border security and family integrity, therefore the moral crisis is provoked by a president enforcing the law, and therefore we should not plug leaking holes because it's a lesser evil.
That's not an argument. That needs to change as we deal with border security.
Literally your points have so far been "that's asking for too much", a complete non-argument, and "enforcing the law reveals complications within it, so we shouldn't do anything despite evidence suggesting legitimate problems with border security", which is just a poor rationale for the flawed status quo at the border.
They aren't running for their lives, otherwise they would stop at the next safest country, and aside from Venezuela we are not looking at regional problems of social conflict and political persecution. They also don't need a map, we have either traffickers or NGOs to assist in movement.
The only farce is this idea that it's okay for me to cross a border illegally, file an asylum claim, and be released while there is a backlog and poor anti-fraud systems, which hinders accountability (in absentia) and speediness of processing:
The total number of asylum applications, including both principal applicants and
their eligible dependents, filed in fiscal year 2014 (108,152) is more than double
the number filed in fiscal year 2010 (47,118). As of September 2015, the
Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) has a backlog of 106,121 principal applicants, of which 64,254
have exceeded required time frames for adjudication. USCIS plans to hire
additional staff to address the backlog.
USCIS and the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) have limited capabilities to detect asylum fraud. First, while both
USCIS and EOIR have mechanisms to investigate fraud in individual
applications, neither agency has assessed fraud risks across the asylum
process, in accordance with leading practices for managing fraud risks. Various
cases of fraud illustrate risks that may affect the integrity of the asylum system.
For example, an investigation in New York resulted in charges against 30
defendants as of March 2014 for their alleged participation in immigration fraud
schemes; 829 applicants associated with the attorneys and preparers charged in
the case received asylum from USCIS, and 3,709 received asylum from EOIR.
Without regular assessments of fraud risks, USCIS and EOIR lack reasonable
assurance that they have implemented controls to mitigate those risks. Second,
USCIS’s capability to identify patterns of fraud across asylum applications is
hindered because USCIS relies on a paper-based system for asylum applications
and does not electronically capture some key information that could be used to
detect fraud, such as the applicant’s written statement. Asylum officers and
USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate immigration
officers told GAO that they can identify potential fraud by analyzing trends across
asylum applications; however, they must rely on labor-intensive methods to do
so. Identifying and implementing additional fraud detection tools could enable
USCIS to detect fraud more effectively while using resources more efficiently.
Third, FDNS has not established clear fraud detection responsibilities for its
immigration officers in asylum offices; FDNS officers we spoke with at all eight
asylum offices told GAO they have limited guidance with respect to fraud.
[...]
The U.S. asylum process is designed to protect those who legitimately
fled persecution, affording them the opportunity to prove their eligibility
and credibility. Adjudicating asylum cases is a challenging undertaking
because asylum officers do not always have the means to determine
which claims are authentic and which are fraudulent. With potentially
serious consequences for asylum applicants if they are incorrectly denied
asylum balanced against the importance of maintaining the integrity of the
asylum system, asylum officers and immigration judges must make the
best decisions they can within the constraints they face.
Both DHS and DOJ have established dedicated antifraud entities—an
important leading practice for managing fraud risks—but these agencies
have limited capability to detect and prevent asylum fraud and both
agencies’ efforts to date have focused on case-by-case fraud detection
rather than more strategic, risk-based approaches. DHS and DOJ could
be better positioned to assess and address fraud risks across their
asylum processes.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673941.pdf
Sure, I think you've been a comparatively good poster every time I've seen you. I do not see any evidence that the current administration has a literal 'family-separation policy', it has a policy that entailed a decision between prosecuting adults in a demonstration of intent after illegal immigration rates resumed in an apparent sense of bluffing, or not doing so to keep families together. They clearly made a value call to prioritize the former, which is what is being criticized as everything from hypocritical to white supremacy, while Congressional Republicans deal with the stipulations of the law that entail the latter even with accompanied children.
What is my side? And how is this Trump getting everything he wants? Do you see a wall being built? Merit-based immigration reform is hardly a partisan issue.
First of all this is not just whites.
6-3-BT-toplines-tabs-final.pdf - Google Drive
"15. Impact of Immigration Change
In your opinion, has that change been for the better or for the worse?
Asked of those saying immigration has changed area where they live"
Worse:
White: 58%
Black: 45%
Hispanic: 44%
Other: 51%
% of those saying immigration has changed area where they live (48%):
"14. In recent years, has immigration and the arrival of new immigrant groups changed the area
where you live, or not?
A lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
Some . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
Not much . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
Not at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%"
Secondly, what makes you think border security is a racial issue? Honestly, as far as I can tell it only really is in relation to a pretty die-hard and hopefully minority section of the left, who just oppose whatever they see whites disproportionately opposing even if it is in support of a position consistent with civic nationalism and a watered down form of American traditions on immigration, naturalization, etc (since nobody wants national origins quotas).
Now, if you see the fight over the relevance of the nation-state in a globalized world as a tribal, racial issue, I'm not really interested in justifying the logic of any party involved since I think it's pointless. If the discussion has reached that point, I think democracy is doomed and a Weimar-like phase for the republic is inevitable.
can you explain to me what is stopping trump from doing whatever obama did, @tempcon ?
Thanks for asking nicely. I'm going to reference this CNN article to help substantiate, since I think that'll help getting across.
So, one of the things I mentioned with Firgof is changing immigration patterns and other circumstances. Namely, that we're seeing significantly more asylum claims to the point of causing large backlog, change in laws (later rulings on 1997 Flores law that changed how we dealt with accompanied children that laid the groundwork for family separation), as well as increase in the number of family units arriving. These are some things that Obama overall didn't really deal with for most of his presidency. When the change did come under him, the 'catch and release' phenomenon began as the lack of space, backlog, and Flores complications just meant it was easier to release illegal immigrants pending criminal or asylum-related adjudication. However, as I've cited already, in absentia rates have skyrocketed (24% to 39% from 2012 to 2016, pdf page 52) roughly in parallel to asylum claims increasing (130% from 2010 to 2014, pdf page 27) and the change in immigration patterns to include more family units.
This suggests, unlike what Firgof was claiming, that things were not dandy under Obama and Trump is just being an asshole, that his policy is "what changed" and what we need to focus on. In order to believe that, you need to ignore that we have had a growing issue, number-wise, later into his second term complicated by court rulings that took place when Obama was almost out.
In 2015, a federal judge in California ruled that the Flores requirements apply not only to unaccompanied minors but also to children apprehended with their parents, meaning that all minors must be released from detention if possible. The judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release parents detained along with their children. An appeals court in 2016 affirmed that Flores applied to all children but reversed the ruling that parents should be released as well. Amid a surge in family flows, there were not enough detention beds available to hold families even for the 20 days allowed under the court settlement, causing many to be released. The family detention system currently has capacity to hold just 2,700 people at a time -- resulting in the "catch and release" that President Trump railed against in his election campaign and since.
[...]
Cillizza: What, specifically, did the Trump administration change in this policy? And is this simply an enforcement of an Obama administration policy or an actual change?
The change the Trump administration has made is to declare and try to implement a zero-tolerance policy at the US-Mexico border: Criminal prosecution of all people who seek to cross illegally between ports of entry. With Attorney General Jeff Sessions' announcement on April 7 that all illegal crossers would be prosecuted in federal court for illegal entry or re-entry, the administration essentially ensured that parents would be separated from their children because minors cannot be kept in federal criminal detention facilities. So the parents are now being transferred from the Border Patrol to the US Marshals Service and then are being tried in court for the misdemeanor of illegal entry or the felony charge of illegal re-entry. As a result, their children are turned over to the custody of the Department of Health Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement.
The Trump administration's blanket policy to prosecute all illegal crossers, including family groups, is new. However, it builds upon earlier efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations. In 2005, the Bush administration launched Operation Streamline in one Border Patrol sector in Texas, aiming to criminally prosecute illegal crossers. Between 2003 and 2005, criminal prosecutions of first-time unauthorized crossers for illegal entry or re-entry more than quadrupled, from 4,000 to 16,500. By 2010, they had reached 44,000. Operation Streamline was extended to some other Border Patrol sectors and continued under the Obama administration, reaching a peak 97,000 criminal prosecutions in 2013.
Still, the phenomenon of families arriving at the US-Mexico border together dates from just the last few years, and was not one that the Bush or early Obama administrations confronted in any significant numbers. Few children were separated from their families during the earlier administrations as a result of criminal prosecution of the parents.
[...]
Arrivals of Central American families at the US-Mexico border have been increasing. Fewer than 1,000 people traveling together in families were apprehended in May 2012. In May 2014, nearly 12,800 were apprehended. Although the number was a lower 9,500 in May 2018, these so-called "family unit" arrivals have overtaken unaccompanied minor apprehensions, raising concerns within DHS and the Trump administration more broadly. At the same time, a policy that results in the deliberate separation of children -- sometimes very young ones -- from their parents is not humane, and there are even questions whether it will prove effective over the long term in deterring future arrivals.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/donald-trump-immigration-policies-q-and-a/index.html
There's a certain tragic irony to this situation that speaks to the dysfunction of government, where the bipartisan action by congress necessary in the first place to reconcile prosecution with family integrity is only made possible by strict enforcement of what's on the books revealing flaws in the system which in turn produces humanitarian issues, especially given conditions of an overwhelmed system, recent court rulings on Flores, etc. Things Obama really didn't deal with, and I see no way for Trump to push bipartisan Congress action before the zero-tolerance policy to change the Flores law.
As usual, the US system is lackluster.
It is 'what changed'. Thanks for playing deflection. My claim isn't a claim, it's a fact. A fact which has been backed up by additional reporting today.
Requiring Asylum seekers to be prosecuted is what's causing this. You can choose to deny that as much as you like - that was the intent, that is the stated thrust, and that is the execution.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/reaping-the-harvest-of-fear-the-obama-administration-deports-asylum-seekers/
I also have to point out the irony of you starting off this debate saying Obama was deporting all sorts of people in order to question the necessity of Trump's actions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
What irony? What are you on about?
I don't think I saw this posted here yet.
https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1008704668816560128
Sorry, I was under the impression you were against just deporting them as a family, as you stated earlier. Since you didn't want them detained either and had never agreed with me to amend the Flores law to permit whole-family detainment on top of that, it appeared me you were okay with releases. Which is fine, but that doesn't mean your opposition to a president that isn't logically means his policy of enforcing the law is the issue.
I'm sure you'd support a President who directed the DoJ to prosecute every instance of Jaywalking in the United States with the most maximal sentence possible; that every speeding ticket should be upgraded to a Misdemeanor charge and that every speed ticket violation should be accompanied by an arrest to that end.
Because after all that's just "enforcing the law".
Don't insult my intelligence. Besides the fact that those crimes occur domestically, which is to say they are a statistical inevitability unlike crimes committed by illegal immigrants when you don't enforce the law seriously, the enforcement of borders is the basis of the integrity of a nation, especially one with a welfare state. My government owes me regulated borders as a basic function of its existence, jaywalking does not bring into question such.
Which is why Trump's inauguration brought illegal immigration levels to all-time lows until people starting thinking it was just rhetoric and the broken policies weren't changing.
I'm not insulting your intelligence. Don't insult me by insinuating that I'm insulting your intelligence. I'm ripping the robes off your flawed argument to expose how weak and sad it is. If you don't like that, don't make weak arguments.
Immigration levels plausibly dropped to all-time lows because we had a historically horrifying President. Would you emigrate to Italy when you heard Mussolini got elected and announced his 'plan to fix Italy' when he campaigned on jailing his opposition party and deporting en masse anyone who is not a citizen of his country? Of course not. Not if you don't want to get caught up in that.
When people thought he in fact was mild because those things didn't come immediately to pass, they thought perhaps it was rhetoric. It is being proven now that it was not empty rhetoric - it is what he wanted to do.
I thought immigration from the mexico upwards was low because the peso was doing rather well by the end of obama's term.
There was also dramatically less unrest in South America in general. Things have gotten dramatically worse down there in the preceding two years which, of course, means more people are fleeing their countries and trying to find asylum here - which is their international right to do.
Don't fool yourself, you've done no such thing. While I'm aware you want a simple talking point, in answering the question of "what changed?" you cannot do without later rulings on the Flores law mandating release of children after 20 days and illegal immigration pattern changes to include more families. This means that given conditions of the growing overwhelmed nature of criminal and asylum adjudication system (delays in court, lack of shelter space, etc.) causing releases, precipitating Trump to prosecute those who do not enter through a port of entry to file an asylum claim, those two create a recipe for family separation when the law is enforced.
You want to single out that as the variable, his enforcement of the law to a greater quantitative degree than Obama, for reasons I can easily guess. The only point you could muster in response to me demolishing that was to claim maybe it's philosophy of jurisprudence, that we don't treat jaywalking all that badly so we shouldn't enforce the law here either. In no philosophy of jurisprudence is border law, the basic foundation of a state, not taken seriously.
I agree this debate is rapidly going nowhere. I already laid out my case and sourced every bit of it. Any talk past this is just political headbutting, not logic and facts.
I agree. Since you refuse to acknowledge anything I write, perhaps you'll acknowledge what our Senators are saying.
https://imgur.com/KnqcJoU
He could but whenever people call him out on his bullshit he usually doubles down.
An appeal to authority is not an argument.
Also, I never denied you could fix the situation without legislation. You could not prosecute people, sure.
It's not even a good appeal to authority. She's a moderate republican from Maine.
Yes, I've read sporadic stories of agents illegally turning away asylum seekers, although I've not seen data. That's not an argument for anything but rectifying that issue so ports of entry function as they should.
She's right though, Trump could change his mind about this whenever
You using this as a dismissive tactic is so boggling.
Being a moderate republican means what now? How far has the party devolved that even people who consider themselves republicans are itching to disregard the non extremists as not being enough of an authority.
I've been stunned before how some right wing folks have predicted that trump won't do X or will do Y, only for him do X or not do Y weeks or even days later. Trusting Trump or the GOP in any fashion is scarcely different than a cult to me.
It means it's a crappy appeal to authority since she's not necessarily representative of her peers.
That doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's talking about versus the law and whether or not this could end with a phone call from the President, which is in fact what she has stated.
That information also comes in the form of Democrat Senator - so it's even bipartisan agreement on that particular issue.
Further, it's not an argument -- it's evidence to back my claim.
RINOs don't count, you have to be at least as deranged as the president in order to have any political currency nowadays
If anyone actually thinks trump doesn't know what hes doing with the kids, or is just following the law, you are blatantly lying to yourself.
I don't think the people there understand how much power they have tbh.
The private prison system is pretty much a tax leech with some extra slave labor on the side and a dash of disenfranchisement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
