Migrant children and families now face indefinite detention by US - Polidicks

Yeah man cause nothing says "I just value the rule of law" like saying a country that is a signatory of international refugee laws should gun down people seeking asylum.

Well its either someone have cake, or no one at all, and a country will default to its own citizens. As I said, they will just state anyone south of the border have no asylum claim due to economic reasons, and if the international laws get in the way, I can see the US moving them aside to determine its own policy.

Legally they can't just claim nobody from a country can't have an asylum claim without first letting them in the country to make their case. "I just value the rule of law" until the rule of law gets in the way of shitting on migrants then suddenly you want the law to be thrown out.

"I value the rule of law" "But the law allows people to seek asylum" "Ok but not that law, Trump should ignore it".

Thus why there is a legal gateway that doesn't involve crossing the border. Jump much, you should learn to more accurately quote. I value the rule of law, thus illegally crossing a border without using the legal gateway is a big no, and that while the law allows people to seek asylum, their intent allows for detainment in the form of a long time while processed, and never did I say Trump or 'should ignore'. I expected more from you.

Thus, that attitude will eventually bring the system down for everyone else, but you know, its great, because at least some people made it right, right?.

But they ARE crossing the border legally, that's exactly what asylum laws are. Like what the fuck, the same people who bitched about economic migrants who passed country through country in Europe are now complaining about actual people who are fleeing Mexico because cartels have more power than their government. Maybe the concern wasn't actually people abusing the system, maybe you just didn't want brown people coming in at all?

“Lol alarmist liberals thinking Trump is a Nazi. Death camps will never happen so go be triggered elsewhere where libcunt!! #owned#MAGA#BuildTheWall” ”Immigrants will invade in numbers only seen in the Mongolian hordes. We must take any measure to stop them, mow them down if needs be, but our great American soil must be protected at all costs.” :thinking:

Things that Boilrig is completely fucking clueless about, as far as I've seen. Brexit Immigration Wasn't expecting to see this happen but hey, good for a laugh.

I think we can just generally stick "Economics" as a whole in there, since the scope of his idiocy in that subject goes past just Brexit..

I'm not sure its clueless when you go out of your way to just ignore arguments that break down your whole stance. I think he's either trolling, or just plain ol' malicious. That being said just don't feed into his crap. It's basically Tudd but Kiwi instead of Frog.

Ports of Authority are intentionally closed here, forcing asylum seekers to cross illegally like everyone else, or return to where they come from and most likely die. Indefinite Detention or Death. Remember, we have a big ass statue on our shore that reads "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Putting asylum seekers in prison indefinitely, or detaining them for more than a week as they're processed, is utter bullshit. And let's not even get into how fucked up separating the families is, deporting parents and keeping the kids in large cages

What's wrong with you? How low do you perceive these humans to be? Furthermore, in almost every thread I've seen you debate in (using the most insane arguments), pretty much everyone gangs up against you. Why do you think that is? Why wouldn't there be more people here sharing your view and agreeing with your points? Is it because we are all wrong and just sitting here in an echo chamber? Or is it because your own world view is so skewed and twisted? The phrase "everyone else is wrong except me". How can you be sure that you are right when so many others disagree, users, media, and experts alike?

Trump and the top brass at ICE belong in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity

If that would happen, the US would literally invade the Netherlands. Not even joking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act?oldformat=true

US is above the law.

Can't really be helped, we have rules of "d e c o r u m" here that allow trolls to get away for a long time.

Someone talk me through this here, because I'm a vaguely right-leaning libertarian who is not exactly well versed on this immigration issue. The first issue, to my limited understanding, was that we were separating kids from their parents and/or adult border-crossing guides, which to my knowledge is somewhat standard when the identity of the adult cannot be confirmed, and they are suspected of committing a crime. Since there were so many of the kids and they didn't have a shitton of funding, they were in large buildings with fences and blankets and stuff. People got outraged at that, so they stopped separating the kids from the adults, but the immigration services still have to figure out whether or not these people are here illegally, so they hold them as they investigate. Granted, indefinitely is very strange and blatantly unconstitutional, but I don't exactly see the issue yet with holding onto an unknown illegal alien crossing the border. Is the outrage here because the time is indefinite, instead of a week? Or is it because we're holding them at all? The alternative is literally open borders.

They aren't "illegal" they are utilizing the fully legal process. Even with Obama we had the same process, except instead of jailing everyone people were just scheduled for trials and released.

Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as holding on to someone 'Indefinitely' as the Constitution demands a Speedy Trial. Holding on to them for 'however long it takes' is a power which can be found only and exactly in one place legally speaking, and that's when you're held in Contempt of Court. Your right is not being infringed there because it is you who is delaying the trial and as soon as you cooperate you will be given your trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause Additionally, this violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it grants 6th Amendment rights to all those within the US' borders. Even stating that it's 'not the case that they are protected by the Constitution' should be seen as a violation of that Amendment if stated by a public official in the government. Furthermore, they are being tried in groups - mass trials in other words - and in many cases they have more or less been blackmailed into entering a guilty plea under the false notion that they will be rejoined with their children if they do so. This is a violation of the Fifth Amendment as their cases are not being judged individually on their own merits but collectively and without proper representation as it harms Due Process. Due Process is also further harmed by Prosecutors having their Prosecutorial Discretion removed - but this is less a Constitutional infringement and more a Constitutional weakening as it doesn't impact the rights of those who are being prosecuted but rather the work of those doing the prosecuting. Finally, we agreed to make no criminal law or statute or any form of barrier to make more difficult the seeking of Asylum in the U.S. The deployment of this new policy (and the policy after it) creates a new barrier for Refugees and Asylees which did not exist before because we were acting under the restrictions we agreed to be restricted to by signing on to the UN accords where we agreed to take on any Asylee who came to 'our doorstep'. That is also why crossing the border to present themselves as asylum seekers should not be seen as illegal as if it were illegal that would mean we are flagrantly ignoring that international accords.

Nah you 14th amendment supporters are just being paranoid. Nobody’s going to take away your rights!

Because you would not like to see the same constitutional violations brought down on these folk to be brought down on yourself?

This whole post speaks volumes about your character and none of it's particularly good.

That’s rich considering the same argument has been used against your side of the argument in the past. The only notable response I’ve gotten is “well I don’t use THAT individual right, so I don’t think anyone really NEEDS to have it”. Now the tables have turned and you expect more of me? LMFAO. I’m not cutting anything off because this doesn’t effect me. Ain’t that funny how that works? I used to think differently, but a decade of seeing people bitch and moan about identity politics tends to have that effect on people. I’ve just finally ran out of fucks to give. But sure I’m a bad person for not wanting to put up with everyone’s bullshit anymore, even when I’ve been more supportive of socially liberal policies in the past. Believe whatever you want; it’s what everyone seems to be good at doing these days anyway.

This is something I used to believe on the left and I'm not sure of its positive sum nature anymore. This is kind of why the immigration issue is so sensitive and reflects on fundamental left-right worldview differences. You essentially have a particularly hyper-universalist interpretation of the scope of rights (motivated by ideology) feeding increasingly broad use of asylum which in turn can be easily applied for regardless of method of entry and, thanks to the overwhelmed nature of the courts and housing space among other things, serve as a means to be released into the country pending adjudication, which itself often has an in absentia problem. From there the growing demographic, which is essentially a product of unintended consequences of law in an unprecedented age of free movement of goods and labor, turns into a means to leverage sweeping liberalization of borders and citizenship laws to the benefit of the party pushing for it. This directly feeds polarization, loss of faith in institutions, and breakdown of a commonly-held civic identity (which serves as a space for compromise) into tribal ones. The left understands this, it just views one set of tribal interests as illegitimate because (its view of) Western history and its interpretation of power relationships, which says some tribal interests are progressive and others are reactionary. Assimilation then becomes a dirty word benefiting the latter too much. It then suggests the struggle against the latter is part of the historical mission of (its interpretation of) liberalism, which has never been agreed upon, to justify the state acting a certain way that does not exactly benefit everyone's interests equally. It's a zero-sum game and there's nothing about human nature that suggests one side is just going to roll over out of idealism, so civil conflict grows. It's further complicated by the fact that the imperialism that we're atoning for was never perpetrated by the people the Democrats are struggling against. It's the elites who today want greater liberalization of borders. This seems to get lost in translation because we're not looking at class here, just race, except when it comes to internal party divides. Where we find ourselves is actually quite historically remarkable. It really supports the idea that rapid and significant material change causes a lot of social stress and reveals flaws in our system not previously seen as much. You see the zeal of historical battles start to come out, which is where the instability of democracy becomes really evident. The dialogue is literally one side saying the other is Hitler and the other saying it wants open borders. Our issues are so profound they're about fundamental value differences. It's easily solved either. It's not like any side is massively gaining from this and winning a popular mandate, it's only really served to deepen cultural and social divides underlying the political ones. Our postcolonial dream of liberty is turning into a nightmare.

It doesn't affect you so long as you never ever ever ever become involved in any capacity with the justice system, sure. That's like saying 'Hah! Fuck you, I'm 25 and I'll never need health insurance because I'm a perfectly fit individual unlike your lard ass!'

You’re right, that would be very bad. I’m mostly just sick of the epic callouts like “why don’t the 2nd amendment people do something about it?!” as if a civil war would help things in this situation. The point of the 2nd amendment isn’t for the population to go to war at the first signs of trouble, but to have at least a chance of turning things around if all other options fail. Making those kind of suggestions is just another blatant mischaracterization of what people have argued in the past. Overall it’s in very bad taste and just comes across to me as them going out of their way to talk shit when there are more serious issues to deal with. I just don’t have will to put up with that petty bullshit anymore, you know? Ouch, sounds like I hit a nerve there.

Ignoring everything else, this is at the very least unarguably not 'the first signs of trouble'.

Objectively, that won't fix anything.

I dunno man maybe it's not all about you