Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

It's almost like we are supposed to have rules about unfair punishments. Unless of course losing a child forever is a fair punishment for crossing the border in your eyes.

Illegal immigration should be considered a risk.
It's not like legal options don't exist to enter. But how is living in another country a right?

Otherwise, it's open borders which invites a flow of gang members, drugs, economic anchors.

 

[HStallion]

How about losing track of over 1500 children in all this mess?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/26/politics/hhs-lost-track-1500-immigrant-children/index.html

Geezus

.
But they're breaking the law

Illegal immigration should be considered a risk.
It's not like legal options don't exist to enter. But how is living in another country a right?

Otherwise, it's open borders which invites a flow of gang members, drugs, economic anchors.

So you agree losing one's child forever is fair punishment for crossing the border?

 

[RokkanStoned]

Hey they're just deterring people from the border like you said. Maybe some water boarding to make sure they think twice about coming back.

The deterrent is an effect of enforcing law. There's no equivalent between your suggestions.

 

[TheShadowLord]

I think it would just be best if the US and the Central/South American countries work together to defeat violent criminals like the Cartels and help them with their economy. If their countries were a whole lot better, then we could see a major drop in illegal immigration. Maybe make drugs like weed and prostitution legal if it means it would hurt the Mexican gangs.

 

[Vicetrailia]

That video doesn't really add much (and it's very deceptive, if you read the sources). More so, it's MSNBC. Could've just as well posted Fox News .
The administration have indeed chosen to be tough on the border, by prosecution the crime of illegally entering the US. That's what's happening amongst many different things (like the case discussed above), which leads to prosecution, which means that their kids have to be elsewhere in the meanwhile. The problem after that is the responsibility of the federal government and the institutions they put them into care in, if they are lost. Just like it would be in the case of an american. Then you have a further problem with reunification.

As mentioned in the same interview they based their quote on, prosecution and what it entails, is viewed as a tough deterrent, allowing for a faster turnaround on asylum seekers.

Again, if something is done illegally, then a legal case has to be started, if not, then you'll have to change the laws.

This is the Trump admin taking bad policy to the next level of enforcement and inhumanity. This whole thing is going too far, and they should find another way.

 

[HStallion]

The deterrent is an effect of enforcing law. There's no equivalent between your suggestions.

You're already cool with horribly disgusting deterrents, what's a few more?

 

[RokkanStoned]

How about losing track of over 1500 children in all this mess?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/26/politics/hhs-lost-track-1500-immigrant-children/index.html

Geezus

That's the government's responsibility, which I assume there are grounds to sue. Hopefully if so, they get some help to initiate it.

 

[Sàmban]

Here's the actual interview and not a secondary source:
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/6101...chief-of-staff-john-kellys-interview-with-npr
They're paraphrasing him there btw.

He says that it's being done, because it's a crime and its deterrent effect. It's their choice to enforce, that's right, but if they're prosecuting them, it's the natural consequence and it depends on there being grounds for it. It's easy to appeal to "but the children", but in this case there is merits in the position from the perspective of the current administration. Sure, it's shitty, but again, it's because we have borders and the concept of control over borders within a country.

I don’t really see what you’re saying differently here. It’s being done because it’s a deterrent to the crime of illegal entry...which is what my source is saying.

You agree with me that this is “shitty” (I’d say extremely fucked up but whatever), claiming that this administration deems it necessary to do so. Which is the whole point of this thread: this is NOT necessary. It is barbaric.

To further explore that point, I suppose then that my question to you is this: are you claiming or do you believe that these people can’t be prosecuted along with their children? That is, must the families be ripped apart for the prosecution to happen? Because that seems patently absurd to me. What about asylum seekers who are not crossing illegally that get the same treatment? Surely you can honestly see that something is broken here.

 

[JordanN]

.
So you agree losing one's child forever is fair punishment for crossing the border?

If it was up to me, I would do what was best to keep the child safe but punish the parent who crossed illegally.
It's not the child's fault their parent is selfish so that's as far as my sympathy goes. But you can't give illegal immigrants a pass just based on emotions alone, or else where does it end?

Imagine 500 illegals cross the border? Why did they do this and why is the host nation forced into accepting them?

 

[RokkanStoned]

This is the Trump admin taking bad policy to the next level of enforcement and inhumanity. This whole thing is going too far, and they should find another way.

You can embed tweets, can't you?

Edit: Didn't appear embeded at first.

It seems like Trump wants a stop to a law separating parents and children, and that he wants to use the democrats on it, to end catch and release, visa lottery and "chain migration" and the wall amongst it. That Trump uses the issue politically to pressure someone, isn't something that's really surprising. It's a political game, but not surprising. Is it shitty? Yes, it indeed is, but that's a typical political thing, where one uses one thing to try to leverage other issues.

 

[HStallion]

If it was up to me, I would do what was best to keep the child safe but punish the parent who crossed illegally.
It's not the child's fault their parent is selfish so that's as far as my sympathy goes. But you can't give illegal immigrants a pass just based on emotions alone, or else where does it end?

Imagine 500 illegals cross the border? Why did they do this and why is the host nations forced into accepting them?

I can imagine a ton of sound reasons they'd try and get into the country. Many to do with their family. Not to mention I don't think illegals getting to stay with their family is "a pass"

 

[Sàmban]

Illegal immigration should be considered a risk.
It's not like legal options don't exist to enter. But how is living in another country a right?

Otherwise, it's open borders which invites a flow of gang members, drugs, economic anchors.

Again, this is also happening to asylum seekers (I.e. people showing up to authorities asking for help), not just people crossing illegally. Read the OP please.

 

[HStallion]

You can embed tweets, can't you?

Edit: Didn't appear embeded at first.

It seems like Trump wants a stop to a law separating parents and children, and that he wants to use the democrats on it, to end catch and release, visa lottery and "chain migration" and the wall amongst it. That Trump uses the issue politically to pressure someone, isn't something that's really surprising. It's a political game, but not surprising. Is it shitty? Yes, it indeed is, but that's a typical political thing, where one uses one thing to try to leverage other issues.

The GOP controls the Congress and the President. Why don't they just do it themselves instead of trying to dump this onto the Democrats?

 

[JordanN]

I can imagine a ton of sound reasons they'd try and get into the country. Many to do with their family. Not to mention I don't think illegals getting to stay with their family is "a pass"

When the situation gets this bad, I think it's better to actually stay behind and work on fixing the country instead of just opting out and fleeing.
Especially when you consider some of these migrants deliberately skip several countries and head straight for the U.S or Canada.
We have too many problems here already that we can't just accept the whole of South America into our borders. It's just not economically viable nor is it safe.

 

[Sàmban]

You can embed tweets, can't you?

Edit: Didn't appear embeded at first.

It seems like Trump wants a stop to a law separating parents and children, and that he wants to use the democrats on it, to end catch and release, visa lottery and "chain migration" and the wall amongst it. That Trump uses the issue politically to pressure someone, isn't something that's really surprising. It's a political game, but not surprising. Is it shitty? Yes, it indeed is, but that's a typical political thing, where one uses one thing to try to leverage other issues.

It seems like you are desperately trying to reframe the dystopian gaslighting that is going on in that tweet into something positive.

Trump is trying to blame Democrats for a barbaric policy HIS ADMINISTRSTION started and is now using as leverage to get funding for his policies and a wall that most people agree is a waste of money and could be put into something better like...FIXING OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE...which would generate jobs.

He’s effectively holding these families hostage. At least you recognize that it’s shitty. Are you this blinded by partisanship that you can’t even acknowledge how monumentally fucked up and orwellian that tweet is?

 

[Vicetrailia]

You can embed tweets, can't you?

Edit: Didn't appear embeded at first.

It seems like Trump wants a stop to a law separating parents and children, and that he wants to use the democrats on it, to end catch and release, visa lottery and "chain migration" and the wall amongst it. That Trump uses the issue politically to pressure someone, isn't something that's really surprising. It's a political game, but not surprising. Is it shitty? Yes, it indeed is, but that's a typical political thing, where one uses one thing to try to leverage other issues.

It's a bad strategy because it is Trumps own policy. They aren't gonna beg him to stop after losing 1500 children, to lose protections that Trump doesn't like.

The GOP controls the Congress and the President. Why don't they just do it themselves instead of trying to dump this onto the Democrats?

He won't be able to get the votes.

 

[rokkerkory]

When the situation gets this bad, I think it's better to actually stay behind and work on fixing the country instead of just opting out and fleeing.
Especially when you consider some of these migrants deliberately skip several countries and head straight for the U.S or Canada.
We have too many problems here already that we can't just accept the whole of South America into our borders. It's just not economically viable nor is it safe.

Exaggerate much?

 

[RokkanStoned]

I don’t really see what you’re saying differently here. It’s being done because it’s a deterrent to the crime of illegal entry...which is what my source is saying.

It's a deterrent and it's enforcing crime. Either way, the effect is the same. There's further arguments on it draining resources on the US, which would make it a larger ethical debate, where the deterrent has a positive effect in decreasing expenditure and overall preventing crime. Yes, it's shitty, but Trump has forever shouted about enforcing immigration laws. If he sees a benefit in doing it, that doesn't necessarily work as an argument to why he should stop doing it. It's twofold built, meaning that it's not as easy to reject. It's easier if you point out hypocrisy, like not enforcing other laws, that's a good route to take.

You agree with me that this is “shitty” (I’d say extremely fucked up but whatever), claiming that this administration deems it necessary to do so. Which is the whole point of this thread: this is NOT necessary. It is barbaric.

To further explore that point, I suppose then that my question to you is this: are you claiming or do you believe that these people can’t be prosecuted along with their children? That is, must the families be ripped apart for the prosecution to happen? Because that seems patently absurd to me. What about asylum seekers who are not crossing illegally that get the same treatment? Surely you can honestly see that something is broken here.

It's far more complicated. Since enforcing the law is the focus, that leads to it being a tough thing to get around. Enforcing the law is also part of a deterrence and a principle, leading to that no matter the bad intentions following them, the principle is still to follow them. It's better to treat this by changing laws, to ensure families in regards to being split due to prosecution.

Asylum seekers, that is something I have no idea what principle it works by in the US. But in Norway we consider their application, reject or approve, appeal, reject or approve, tell them to leave, then we tell them to leave and then we ship them out.The asylum institution is currently heavy under attack due to overuse by people who honestly have no grounds for asylum. 49% have no grounds for asylum in 2017 in Norway. Each of these have so many rights and put a large financial pressure on Norway, clogging up other people's cases as well.

Where are people who are being prosecuted kept? Are they suitable conditions for children? All these are questions that show up when it regards families and prosecution. There are solutions to this, though they tend to cost money, which I know is something the US probably tries to avoid. Just look at differences in prisons between US and Europe. I imagine there's no detention facilities in which families can stay together in the US.

The GOP controls the Congress and the President. Why don't they just do it themselves instead of trying to dump this onto the Democrats?

I assume it's because they don't have the necessary votes to get past the Senate. Or there's GOPers that don't want to support it. Again, each party have its members that don't vote the same on all issues.
It's shitty of course to use one change, to pressure the opposition to accept other changes, but that's what happens when it's all "the end justifies the means" (whenever it suits me), as I would call American politics.

 

[bucyou]

"Our policy is if you break the law, we will prosecute you," Nielsen said. "You have an option to go to a port of entry and not illegally cross into our country." - Homeland Secretary Nielsen
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/26/politics/hhs-lost-track-1500-immigrant-children/index.html

Not trying to sound simplistic, but if a citizen commits a crime and has to go get booked at jail, an accompanying child is never allowed to follow.

 

[JordanN]

Exaggerate much?

You're right.
50% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico. With 15% from Central America and another 6% from South America.
But if you look at the gist of my post, if the USA never does anything with its borders, then it's going to see a never ending flow of people wanting to come there illegally.
As much as it sucks, this type of trespassing has to end.

 

[TheMikado]

"Our policy is if you break the law, we will prosecute you," Nielsen said. "You have an option to go to a port of entry and not illegally cross into our country." - Homeland Secretary Nielsen
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/26/politics/hhs-lost-track-1500-immigrant-children/index.html

Not trying to sound simplistic, but if a citizen commits a crime and has to go get booked at jail, an accompanying child is never allowed to follow.

Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor, however since he did it a 2nd time it becomes a felony. I understand the principle of seperating from adults in illegal crossings as there could be child custody or trafficking issues.

What needs to be determined is if the parent had custody rights in their country and if there is next of kin. As far what’s happening in this specific case, the system is broken and that because in support systems for illegal immigrants are under attack which includes harming the children caught in the middle of the politics.

Most of the procedure I see little wrong either beyond what they do and how the process the child and the efforts they make for reunification with the child’s family. While I don’t have the circumstances of this particular case I would imaging there are a lot of things making his difficult, such as finding foreign next of kin/legal guardianship especially if the parent is being uncooperative or has no legal custody rights in their country.

Anyway the fact that are deprioritizing solving these cases and withholding federal funds to ensure these are resolved properly and quickly really helps no one. The argument of, well they shouldn’t have been doing illegal stuff, has no bearing on what we do for the child.

 

[RokkanStoned]

T TheMikado
Is creating a specialized low-security detention facility for families an option and low-security prisons made for a family to live along each other? I guess a problem is the desire to avoid spending money in the US. Might be some legal issues with a child being in jail with their parent. (although there are countries in Europe I believe, where those accomodations are made)
My greatest fear is that the blundering of the government in regards to the care of these children and being separated from parents and potentially going from foster parents to foster parents, can cause reactive attachment syndrome. That's some pretty bad if you've experienced how tough it is for someone with it. Even if in jail or detention, they do have visitation rights, right?

The reunification issue really needs to be put front and center. If the government can't take care of the kids in meanwhile, then they need to be held accountable.

 

[TheMikado]

T TheMikado
Is creating a specialized low-security detention facility for families an option and low-security prisons made for a family to live along each other? I guess a problem is the desire to avoid spending money in the US. Might be some legal issues with a child being in jail with their parent.
My greatest fear is that the blundering of the government in regards to the care of these children and being separated from parents and potentially going from foster parents to foster parents, can cause reactive attachment syndrome. That's some pretty bad if you've experienced how tough it is for someone with it.

The reunification issue really needs to be put front and center. If the government can't take care of the kids in meanwhile, then they need to be held accountable.

The problem as you said would be money, and I believe these types of facilities already exist to a certain extent. The problem is that this person is now a felon due to second re entry which is likely what triggered much of the issue from a legal stand point.

This is a weird case. The guy gets deported but is rightfully distressed and attempts to renter illegally but is not a felony so he’s in even worse legal shape than he was the first time. I don’t have a real answer for this and that’s likely why it’s occuring. I’m not saying throwing money at it will fix the issue but it could help speed up processes like this for quicker resolutions.

 

[Ke0]

It's scary how many are arguing that losing children and in some cases the kids being trafficked are okay end results for breaking a law.

 

[JordanN]

It's scary how many are arguing that losing children and in some cases the kids being trafficked are okay end results for breaking a law.

Why are they illegally entering the country in the first place? Why is living in the United States a right anymore than illegally immigrating to Japan or Mexico?

There wouldn't be any trafficking to begin with if they're prevented from sneaking into the country to begin with.

 

[TheMikado]

Why are they illegally entering the country in the first place? Why is living in the United States a right anymore than illegally immigrating to Japan or Mexico?

There wouldn't be any trafficking to begin with if they're prevented from sneaking into the country to begin with.

Did you read the OP?
“He had mortgaged his land in Guatemala to fund his sick toddler’s hospital stay, and needed to work in the United States to pay off the loan.”

 

[camelCase]

Fucked up.

No one in their right minds is going to endanger themselves and potentially their family by trying to illegally cross borders. The inability to keep track of these criminals is a failing of our legal system.

Did you read the OP?
“He had mortgaged his land in Guatemala to fund his sick toddler’s hospital stay, and needed to work in the United States to pay off the loan.”

Did he have a green card?

 

[RokkanStoned]

I’m not saying throwing money at it will fix the issue but it could help speed up processes like this for quicker resolutions.

Speeding up the process would certainly help. Still, the children would still be without parents. If there are facilities for families, then those should be used and if not and the reason is legal issues, (putting a minor in prison itself, even not as a prisoner is probably legally dubious) then Congress and the administration should work towards to considering solutions to the problem and if there are any legal measures that don't have negative consequences on other parts of the justice system.

Did you read the OP?
“He had mortgaged his land in Guatemala to fund his sick toddler’s hospital stay, and needed to work in the United States to pay off the loan.”

I assume he might be referring to "why didn't he work to pay it off in Guatemala?", in which the answer is probably a large difference in salary, making it much easier to meet the payment and earn back his previous life
The secondary part is unrelated though, unless it's about a universal moral imperative, of course.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Makes you wonder why there isn't an "Ellis Island" of the south.

 

[Vicetrailia]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/texas-border-patrol-shooting/index.html

Trump is doing a number to immigrants and brown people alike.

 

[pramod]

If this can act as a deterrent to prevent more illegal parents bringing their kids, I'm all for it. America does not have the room or capacity to take care of all the world's poor.

 

[RokkanStoned]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/texas-border-patrol-shooting/index.html

Trump is doing a number to immigrants and brown people alike.

You know, I like you @ssolitare, you're a great countervoice at this forum (you really are), but I know you know better than to make statements that require a rather complex causal connection or a really weak causal connection. A simple "This is what being tough on the border gives us. Thanks Trump.", would be far more effective and shut down your opposition more effectively. Anyways, to respond more directly, let's see what the FBI investigation finds out and what's done, and besides that there's the overall arching subject of body cams for police officers and for border patrol agents (though I'm unsure on the cross-country legality of surveillance, though I guess satellites and distance to the actual border makes that irrelevant?)

 

[camelCase]

If this can act as a deterrent to prevent more illegal parents bringing their kids, I'm all for it. America does not have the room or capacity to take care of all the world's poor.

Good point, why do I never see this brought up ever? I don't want the standard of living decreasing, I don't want the entire country to be NYC/SF. Immigration should be gated. Overpop, pollution and crime are already a gigantic fucking problem in cities and an influx of people into those areas will undoubtedly make those problems way worse.

As for the deterrent, I doubt very seriously the people who are future illegal immigrants have means to find out about this stuff. They act with utter disregard for the country and I doubt they are taking time to research the legality of what they're doing.

Makes you wonder why there isn't an "Ellis Island" of the south.

There were a shit ton of (free) immigrants who came through the ports of NOLA. For jazz, you have them to thank.

 

[TheMikado]

Good point, why do I never see this brought up ever? I don't want the standard of living decreasing, I don't want the entire country to be NYC/SF. Immigration should be gated. Overpop, pollution and crime are already a gigantic fucking problem in cities and an influx of people into those areas will undoubtedly make those problems way worse.

As for the deterrent, I doubt very seriously the people who are future illegal immigrants have means to find out about this stuff. They act with utter disregard for the country and I doubt they are taking time to research the legality of what they're doing.


There were a shit ton of (free) immigrants who came through the ports of NOLA. For jazz, you have them to thank.

It’s because from the moment a person enters our borders we hold them and ourselves to a higher standard of ethics, morality, and human rights. The country for better or for worse was founding on these Christian principles of human rights and freedoms. And while in various points in our history the country has not lived up to these principles it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for them.

All peoples from the moment they enter our borders are guaranteed constitutional protections which includes ripping and destroying family and creating lasting chasm in basic principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That’s not to say we should have an open border or not enforce our laws. But we aren’t barbarians, we aren’t animals, as a country we strive towards exhibiting the virtues of human rights and we lead by example.

Purposely and forceable ripping children from families just for the sake of enforcing a law which amounts to no more than a misdemeanor would go against our core American beliefs. As a country I’d like to think that better than that, and as individuals I would hope we aren’t monsters to think punishing children is an effects means of promoting the rule of law and human rights.

 

[camelCase]

It’s because from the moment a person enters our borders we hold them and ourselves to a higher standard of ethics, morality, and human rights. The country for better or for worse was founding on these Christian principles of human rights and freedoms. And while in various points in our history the country has not lived up to these principles it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for them.

All peoples from the moment they enter our borders are guaranteed constitutional protections which includes ripping and destroying family and creating lasting chasm in basic principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That’s not to say we should have an open border or not enforce our laws. But we aren’t barbarians, we aren’t animals, as a country we strive towards exhibiting the virtues of human rights and we lead by example.

Purposely and forceable ripping children from families just for the sake of enforcing a law which amounts to no more than a misdemeanor would go against our core American beliefs. As a country I’d like to think that better than that, and as individuals I would hope we aren’t monsters to think punishing children is an effects means of promoting the rule of law and human rights.

I agree but we can't just release criminals for sympathetic reasons. The children of these criminals are still their children and are going to be biased accordingly. It sucks but what is the proper way to treat a family of criminals? We can't give them the benefit of the doubt because they've proven they are willing to compromise the law and others safety in order to carry out their will. How would you act if you were separated from your parents? I would lash out. I shudder to think of myself in those circumstances. But they aren't situations that were hoist upon them. I should be sorry if that is too harsh.

 

[Punished Miku]

If this was happening to someone you actually knew, and they lost their child forever for breaking a law, I think people here would be more upset about it. I'm all for securing the border, and sensible paths to normalize status for people here already. But you can't just lose someone's kid. That's the kind of thing that will turn someone into a murderer. That line should not be crossed, and it's a huge abuse by the government to do this to anyone.

 

[HStallion]

Good point, why do I never see this brought up ever? I don't want the standard of living decreasing, I don't want the entire country to be NYC/SF. Immigration should be gated. Overpop, pollution and crime are already a gigantic fucking problem in cities and an influx of people into those areas will undoubtedly make those problems way worse.

As for the deterrent, I doubt very seriously the people who are future illegal immigrants have means to find out about this stuff. They act with utter disregard for the country and I doubt they are taking time to research the legality of what they're doing.


There were a shit ton of (free) immigrants who came through the ports of NOLA. For jazz, you have them to thank.

I'm really curious what immigration has to do with the problems of NYC or SF. Crime in NYC for example has been dropping for years now and is hitting some major lows. Not too mention I'm not sure how destroying families fixes any of this.

 

[Sàmban]

I agree but we can't just release criminals for sympathetic reasons. The children of these criminals are still their children and are going to be biased accordingly. It sucks but what is the proper way to treat a family of criminals? We can't give them the benefit of the doubt because they've proven they are willing to compromise the law and others safety in order to carry out their will. How would you act if you were separated from your parents? I would lash out. I shudder to think of myself in those circumstances. But they aren't situations that were hoist upon them. I should be sorry if that is too harsh.

This post reminds me of those politicians that are staunchly pro life and family values until their mistress gets knocked up then fuck all that.

 

[TheMikado]

I agree but we can't just release criminals for sympathetic reasons. The children of these criminals are still their children and are going to be biased accordingly. It sucks but what is the proper way to treat a family of criminals? We can't give them the benefit of the doubt because they've proven they are willing to compromise the law and others safety in order to carry out their will. How would you act if you were separated from your parents? I would lash out. I shudder to think of myself in those circumstances. But they aren't situations that were hoist upon them. I should be sorry if that is too harsh.

I mean for starters if you deport the parent or guardian you deport the child along with them. It’s not complicated. If they cross the border with a child, in the deportation process you determine if the child is of proper custody to the parent and if so, when you deport the parent you send the child with them. Why does it need to be any harder than that?

 

[KINGMOKU]

It's almost like we are supposed to have rules about unfair punishments. Unless of course losing a child forever is a fair punishment for crossing the border in your eyes.

Did you willfully ignore me stating it was a bad situation? The problem here is that your grouping two things together to try support whatever argument your attempting.

Fact is laws were broken that are explicitly clear. So clear in fact he did it twice knowing full well the consequences. There is a right way, and a wrong way to do things and he did it the wrong way twice.

Lets see how the situation is resolved.

 

[HStallion]

Did you willfully ignore me stating it was a bad situation? The problem here is that your grouping two things together to try support whatever argument your attempting.

Fact is laws were broken that are explicitly clear. So clear in fact he did it twice knowing full well the consequences. There is a right way, and a wrong way to do things and he did it the wrong way twice.

Lets see how the situation is resolved.

Fact is our country has a very long and sordid affair with incredibly unfair and ugly laws for minorities of all sorts so forgive me if I don't hold,"It's the law, they shouldn't have broke the law." argument in high regard in these situations, especially under our current administration.

 

[Cunth]

They are doing the same as Australia, and trying to send a strong message

 

[Ke0]

Why are they illegally entering the country in the first place? Why is living in the United States a right anymore than illegally immigrating to Japan or Mexico?

There wouldn't be any trafficking to begin with if they're prevented from sneaking into the country to begin with.

You'd think American citizens and agency personnel would be I dunno, be better than the rapists, killers, and traffickers they claim are coming into their country... If this kind of treatment of children is acceptable recourse for breaking the law, then it should be expanded to citizens of the US.

 

[camelCase]

I mean for starters if you deport the parent or guardian you deport the child along with them. It’s not complicated. If they cross the border with a child, in the deportation process you determine if the child is of proper custody to the parent and if so, when you deport the parent you send the child with them. Why does it need to be any harder than that?

Yes, I agree. The people in charge of our legal system should be put through the ringer.

I'm really curious what immigration has to do with the problems of NYC or SF. Crime in NYC for example has been dropping for years now and is hitting some major lows. Not too mention I'm not sure how destroying families fixes any of this.

They're linked. An influx of low income or completely unpaid families will lead to crime. Especially if the economy isn't good to them, which it isn't. Overpopulation contributes to crime. You have too much faith in people if you trust the lot of new yorkers to be on their best behavior when it can be lost in the sauce so easily. It's practically a cultural understanding that you have to watch your shit on the train because one of the 50 people that you encounter on your daily commute is gonna try to take your stuff, and that's just a foreground conclusion of using public transportation.

 

[TarNaru33]

Losing the child is a bad situation but this whole ordeal would have been avoided by not doing what he did the first time.

If you knowingly break the law(in this case he got booted the first time, and then came back)you may suffer the consequences.

This could have been avoided if he came across legally the first time. Laws are laws. This has nothing to do with propping up the system, or tearing it down because someone broke the law your attempting to turn it into that when its a whole lot simpler;

Don't break the law. If you do, there will be consequences.

Its so very simple.

People that say this over and over don't care about shit in all actuality. When you make sure that getting here legally is extremely long and difficult, you are setting up a catch 22. Its the same as having you license suspended (in U.S) for not paying court fines that aren't related to driving. Also to remind many of you, U.S is largely responsible for South America's issues (Cold War shenanigans).

There is no "Losing the child is a bad situation, but..." U.S government has no right to separate the families of those who cross illegally. Its sad to see the state of this site, too many assholes with no true empathy has appeared here.

I hope Democrats open the flood gates that is immigration when they regain all 3 branches.

 

[JordanN]

People that say this over and over don't care about shit in all actuality. When you make sure that getting here legally is extremely long and difficult, you are setting up a catch 22. Its the same as having you license suspended (in U.S) for not paying court fines that aren't related to driving. Also to remind many of you, U.S is largely responsible for South America's issues (Cold War shenanigans).

Its sad to see the state of this site, too many assholes with no true empathy has appeared here.

I was following you up till here.

It's not an empathy issue. I literally haven't seen an argument that says living in the U.S.A is a human right.
Saying the USA is responsible for South America's issues should be a stronger argument they shouldn't live there no? Why aren't they going to Russia instead, since the USSR was just as big of a player?

 

[Cato]

It's scary how many are arguing that losing children and in some cases the kids being trafficked are okay end results for breaking a law.

I think the child is only lost as long as it takes to verify that the man the child was captured with was in fact its father, or someone that had the parents concent and
not just some random trafficer trying to sneak his latest kidnap victim across the border to sell to some cult or something.

 

[pramod]

I'm still confused by all this, why is Trump blaming catch and release? Is that why the children have to be separated from parents?

 

[Sàmban]

I think the child is only lost as long as it takes to verify that the man the child was captured with was in fact its father, or someone that had the parents concent and
not just some random trafficer trying to sneak his latest kidnap victim across the border to sell to some cult or something.

Cato do you have a source for that? I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere as a reasoning for the separations; mostly that it is being done as a deterrent. If you can provide a source to back that up then it would at least help a little bit in explaining this mess.

 

[AquaticSquirrel]

I can understand where some posters are coming from when they want to respect the rule of law, and uphold borders.

What I think is happening here though is people reflexively falling back into their stances on immigration and stating their talking points.

I think what that does is distract from the topic and point at hand. The simple fact is this thread is not about being pro/anti immigration, this thread is about the US government deciding to remove children from their parents for the sole purpose of "sending a message" to those who would consider illegally crossing the border. I can understand to a degree the posters whose point of view reads something akin to:

"Well, they shouldn't have been breaking the law to begin with, if you break the law you must suffer the consequences"

The problem with this point of view is that the consequences in this case are massively dissproportionate to the crime at hand. For example if you'll allow me to engage in a little hyperbole for the sake of argument: This would be like saying that if you are pulled over for speeding that the government can take your children from you, after all if you don't want that to happen then don't commit crimes.

Obviously most resonable people would be strongly against such measures and call them out for the overstepping of governmental powers that they are.

Look at this case and those similar through the same lense, children are being purposefully removed from their families for committing a crime, but if we are being honest a relatively minor one. This is not right and it is not ok.

So please put aside your stances on immagration for a moment and look at this situation from that perspective. The simple fact is that the children should be sent back along with the parents, together. There is no reason for the children to be forcibly removed and then shuffled into the system with no oversight and no accountability.

That is in a nutshell the point of this thread. Personally I am against that type of inhumane treatment and massive government overreach. Yes we must have borders, it cannot be a free for all and yes law and order should be respected but this is something that goes way too far in my opinion.