Trump admin to end separation policy

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2018, 06:53 PM)jj22 Wrote: I think your outrage over someone saying a kid should be in a concentration camp vs your "outrage" over kids actually being in them speaks for itself. But carry on excusing those who actually put kid in concentration camps while flaming outrage over a tweet from some random person saying a kid should be in one.

I am outraged over kids being separated; I've just placed the blame on the folks that have broken the law and not those that are enforcing it. But "carry on" excusing a tweet that advocates placing a 12 year old boy in a cage (which not immigrant child has been placed) with those that would chose to rape him.

[jj22]

It's a misdemeanor. You don't get your kids taken away for trespassing. And maybe saying a cage was not accurate if you don't consider a jail cell a "cage", but by definition it is accurate.

[Bengalzona]

(06-20-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're good with a system that releases someone that crosses the border illegally and fails to show up for their court date about 80+% of the time; because that's what past administrations were doing?

No. But the Obama Admin processed and sent home more illegals than any other admin to date (including the current one). And they did that without separating families during detention. Isn't that what people wanted?

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2018, 07:02 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. But the Obama Admin processed and sent home more illegals than any other admin to date (including the current one). And they did that without separating families during detention. Isn't that what people wanted?

I think folks (well conservatives anyway) actually want to stop them before they get here.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-20-2018, 07:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think folks (well conservatives anyway) actually want to stop them before they get here.

The US has 9 consulates and an embassy in Mexico.  7 of those consulates are in relative close proximity to the US boarder.  People wishing to seek asylum in the US could apply to any of those consulates, without illegally crossing the boarder and risking criminal charges.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2018, 07:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The US has 9 consulates and an embassy in Mexico.  7 of those consulates are in relative close proximity to the US boarder.  People wishing to seek asylum in the US could apply to any of those consulates, without illegally crossing the boarder and risking criminal charges.  

What you speak of is known as legal immigration. Who has time for that?

The whole argument is absolutely absurd.

[NATI BENGALS]

Desperate people who are trying to enter the right way at ports of entry are being turned away.

Good to see the falsly claimed party if moral superiority shitting all over itself.

Hide behind patriotism and pretend to have religious values. The cowards way.

[*bfine32*]

The more I hear about the new proposal the more I like it. Finally steps are being taken toward immigration reform. It appears if a family is taken into custody for illegal crossing they are kept together in detention and their hearing is expedited. This stops the vast majority of those that do not show up to their hearings and those that look to traffic children across the border. I will say that if this measure slows the processing of folks trying to immigrate legally, I will not be a huge fan; but it beats what is currently/ has been going on.

[Belsnickel]

(06-20-2018, 03:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Out of curiosity, do you have something against Melania?

My guess is that he was sincere. Part of the reason being given for Trump's reversal was Melania urging him to stop the policy, at least that is what I heard on NPR earlier.

(06-20-2018, 06:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: What has changed with this administration is the last part: criminal proceedings. Before, parents with children were not automatically put into criminal proceedings. This administration has elected to do that, in addition to denying asylum requests for a wide variety of reasons.

I just want to clarify, since this wasn't specified. Illegal entry can be treated with either criminal or civil penalties per the USC. Previous administrations opted for civil proceedings rather than criminal. So it wasn't that border crossers were not facing punishment, it was just a different avenue. The problem with all of this, whether processing them for criminal or civil violations, is that there are not enough resources to keep up with the demand. Much like the understaffed border patrol, the staff for processing the claims and the returns are limited in number. The backlog is huge.

What I want for increasing our border security is increasing the resources we send down there. We don't need a wall, we need people. We need trained people to serve in these roles.

[Bengalzona]

(06-20-2018, 07:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The US has 9 consulates and an embassy in Mexico.  7 of those consulates are in relative close proximity to the US boarder.  People wishing to seek asylum in the US could apply to any of those consulates, without illegally crossing the boarder and risking criminal charges.  

Why do you think they don't do that?

I postulate that:
1) Many do go to consulates and embassies, maybe not all or most (although it won't do them much good now that he admin has changed acceptable terms for asylum seekers from Central and South America and removed many previously accepted terms... such as government hit squads are trying to kill you and your family, etc.);
2) Many others do not know of the consulates and embassy or do not know their locations.

Consider that most of these people are also in illegal status in Mexico as well, having come from further south. While the Mexican government is not as efficient as the U.S. government at hunting and catching illegals in their country (and less so now that the current administration has strained relations with them), they do actively try to prevent illegals from crossing their borders and kick out tens of thousands every year. The lifestyle in Mexico, while not as fancy as that of the U.S., is not bad and is better than that of most Central American countries. Being "poorer" than the U.S. doesn't necessarily mean a country is poor or unsophisticated (as our neighbors in Canada would probably agree).

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2018, 08:42 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Why do you think they don't do that?

I postulate that:
1) Many do go to consulates and embassies, maybe not all or most (although it won't do them much good now that he admin has changed acceptable terms for asylum seekers from Central and South America and removed many previously accepted terms... such as government hit squads are trying to kill you and your family, etc.);
2) Many others do not know of the consulates and embassy or do not know their locations.

Consider that most of these people are also in illegal status in Mexico as well, having come from further south. While the Mexican government is not as efficient as the U.S. government at hunting and catching illegals in their country (and less so now that the current administration has strained relations with them), they do actively try to prevent illegals from crossing their borders and kick out tens of thousands every year. The lifestyle in Mexico, while not as fancy as that of the U.S., is not bad and is better than that of most Central American countries. Being "poorer" than the U.S. doesn't necessarily mean a country is poor or unsophisticated (as our neighbors in Canada would probably agree).

1) So they cross illegally because they know they won't qualify for asylum?

2) They can navigate from Central America to points along the US border where they can cross illegally, but cannot find an embassy?

The rest is just more excusing illegal activity.

[Bengalzona]

(06-20-2018, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to clarify, since this wasn't specified. Illegal entry can be treated with either criminal or civil penalties per the USC. Previous administrations opted for civil proceedings rather than criminal. So it wasn't that border crossers were not facing punishment, it was just a different avenue.

And the previous admins opted for the civil proceedings primarily to avoid situations like this where children are separated from their parents. This admin took that position solely to prove to its base that it is "tough on illegal immigration", and then instituted the family separations solely to blackmail votes for the Wall proposal. 

Quote:The problem with all of this, whether processing them for criminal or civil violations, is that there are not enough resources to keep up with the demand. Much like the understaffed border patrol, the staff for processing the claims and the returns are limited in number. The backlog is huge.


What I want for increasing our border security is increasing the resources we send down there. We don't need a wall, we need people. We need trained people to serve in these roles.

The largest issue is the lack of federal judges to hear the cases. This was exacerbated by the six year Republican lock-out on judge appointees by the Obama admin and the delays in getting Trump admin appointees approved (generally because most are hacks and unqualified for the positions).

[Bengalzona]

(06-20-2018, 08:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) So they cross illegally because they know they won't qualify for asylum?

2) They can navigate from Central America to points along the US border where they can cross illegally, but cannot find an embassy?

The rest is just more excusing illegal activity.

Where do you see an excuse?

If they cross our border, send them back. I have no problem with that. But if they haven't crossed our border, then what law have they broken in the U.S.? Threatening to come to our country?

It's pretty easy to just continue north until reach America. And if you are in a country like Mexico illegally to begin with, you generally try to avoid populated areas where consulates or embassies are for fear of increased chances of being identified as illegal and caught. BTW - those consulates and embassies are primarily for Mexican citizens and U.S. citizens in Mexico. I believe our consulates and embassies would turn over illegals in Mexico to the Mexican government.

[Belsnickel]

(06-20-2018, 08:58 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: And the previous admins opted for the civil proceedings primarily to avoid situations like this where children are separated from their parents. This admin took that position solely to prove to its base that it is "tough on illegal immigration", and then instituted the family separations solely to blackmail votes for the Wall proposal. 

Exactly.

(06-20-2018, 08:58 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The largest issue is the lack of federal judges to hear the cases. This was exacerbated by the six year Republican lock-out on judge appointees by the Obama admin and the delays in getting Trump admin appointees approved (generally because most are hacks and unqualified for the positions).

I will only add that there is a staffing problem for other positions, as well. It is extremely difficult to fill positions in the government in modern times. Gone are the days when serving your country through civil service was seen as an honorable career path. Ever since the attack on the administrative state that really started to ramp up during the Nixon administration, we have seen applications to fill positions decrease year over year. We've also seen a reduction is qualifications among those applicants.

This is just one of those things that irritates me because people like to ***** about government workers, but they've been attacking the profession for decades making a lot of good people avoid it, so we don't always get the best people to fill jobs.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2018, 09:03 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Where do you see an excuse?

If they cross our border, send them back. I have no problem with that. But if they haven't crossed our border, then what law have they broken in the U.S.? Threatening to come to our country?

It's pretty easy to just continue north until reach America. And if you are in a country like Mexico illegally to begin with, you generally try to avoid populated areas where consulates or embassies are for fear of increased chances of being identified as illegal and caught. BTW - those consulates and embassies are primarily for Mexican citizens and U.S. citizens in Mexico. I believe our consulates and embassies would turn over illegals in Mexico to the Mexican government.

It started with "Why do you think they don't do that" and ended with "as our neighbors in Canada would probably agree"

They have broken no law in the US if they have not crossed the US border illegally, Send them back where; to Mexico?

I'd disagree with your assertion about how easy it is to migrate from Central America to the US. The rest of that point is just more "not" excusing illegal activity

[Bengalzona]

(06-20-2018, 09:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It started with "Why do you think they don't do that" and ended with "as our neighbors in Canada would probably agree"

They have broken no law in the US if they have not crossed the US border illegally, Send them back where; to Mexico?

I'd disagree with your assertion about how easy it is to migrate from Central America to the US. The rest of that point is just more "not" excusing illegal activity

Giving reasons why they don't go to U.S. embassies and consulates in Mexico is not the same as excusing them from crossing our border illegally. It is just that: reasons why they do not go to U.S. embassies and consulates while in Mexico. Ultimately, if they go to U.S. embassies or consulates in Mexico, our people will turn them over to the Mexican government anyway.

We generally send illegal immigrants back to their country of origin after a hearing has concluded they are here illegally.

[Bengalzona]

(06-20-2018, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will only add that there is a staffing problem for other positions, as well. It is extremely difficult to fill positions in the government in modern times. Gone are the days when serving your country through civil service was seen as an honorable career path. Ever since the attack on the administrative state that really started to ramp up during the Nixon administration, we have seen applications to fill positions decrease year over year. We've also seen a reduction is qualifications among those applicants.

This is just one of those things that irritates me because people like to ***** about government workers, but they've been attacking the profession for decades making a lot of good people avoid it, so we don't always get the best people to fill jobs.

We have a minority in this country who would like to totally neuter the federal government. Of course, I'm sure you already know that. I'm not sure they realize what type of a world they are advocating for, though.

[Bengalzona]

https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1529504994

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2018, 09:39 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Giving reasons why they don't go to U.S. embassies and consulates in Mexico is not the same as excusing them from crossing our border illegally. It is just that: reasons why they do not go to U.S. embassies and consulates while in Mexico. Ultimately, if they go to U.S. embassies or consulates in Mexico, our people will turn them over to the Mexican government anyway.

We generally send illegal immigrants back to their country of origin after a hearing has concluded they are here illegally.

Sure, it's just I found "reasons" such as they can't find one to be funny.

[BFritz21]

To anyone that's bashing the separation of families, and maybe this has been mentioned, but should citizens who are in the country legally and in jail also be able have their families stay with them?