Trump on undocumented immigrants: 'These aren't people. These are animals.'

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2018, 01:10 PM)Millhouse Wrote: What irritates me the most is how so many people can get worked up and feel sorry for these illegal immigrant children, when at the same time there are numerous times the amount of children in the U.S. that are either homeless or living in horrible conditions. Depending on the study, that number is from the 100's of thousands to 2.5 million just a few years ago (just homeless children). Yet no one gets all worked up over them. But 2000 children at the border separated from parents that committed a crime by illegally crossing over, gasp!!

Plenty of people get worked up about children who are US citizens suffering, but much like these immigrant children in cages there is a popular belief that they are only suffering because their parents are "bad."

It's human nature to be upset with the concept of children suffering, but we've clearly found a way to remove ourselves from the problem and place the blame on the parents. Kids are in cages and kids are starving...it doesn't matter where they are from though because it isn't my fault, it's the fault of their parents. My hands are clean. Now what's on TV?

We are very good at looking at someone who is in need or in trouble and convincing ourselves that it is ok, or even good for us not to help that person. We are like the other guys in that good Samaritan story. Ouch.

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 12:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no idea how someone could suggest the administration is doing something wrong. Unless of course you disagree with making crossing the border illegally a crime. They are doing the exact same thing with these children that they would with the child of a citizen if that parent was arrested for a crime. They first look to place them under the custody of family members.

It is the aspect of the left's mentality that I have always had the biggest issue with. These folks are committing a crime according to current law; yet, we paint them as a victim.

It could be because we were administering the law without doing this before hand. The change in procedure, the prosecutorial discretion, was a choice by the administration. You can both hold someone responsible for their actions and want them to be treated in a more humane way. These things are not exclusive.

(06-19-2018, 01:10 PM)Millhouse Wrote: What irritates me the most is how so many people can get worked up and feel sorry for these illegal immigrant children, when at the same time there are numerous times the amount of children in the U.S. that are either homeless or living in horrible conditions. Depending on the study, that number is from the 100's of thousands to 2.5 million just a few years ago (just homeless children). Yet no one gets all worked up over them. But 2000 children at the border separated from parents that committed a crime by illegally crossing over, gasp!!

As someone that is constantly contacting elected officials about programs to help the impoverished, I am here to tell you that you can be concerned about both. Do I think we should be talking more about it in the media? Of course. The problem is that the elites that have overwhelming influence over both the media and our government are more in favor of protecting their wealth than helping the impoverished. They have convinced people that the policies that fill their pockets are more important than the policies that could actually help them.

If you would like to start a thread about child poverty, I'm all for it. But don't claim that people aren't about the well being of both immigrant children and the children already here.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2018, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It could be because we were administering the law without doing this before hand. The change in procedure, the prosecutorial discretion, was a choice by the administration. You can both hold someone responsible for their actions and want them to be treated in a more humane way. These things are not exclusive.

Yeah, there's a difference between administering and enforcing.

What deterrent does anyone have for bringing their families across the border illegally (asylum seeker or not) if they know they will simply be released if caught?

Now knowing that you will be taken you will be taken into custody and separated from your family if caught will most likely motivate you to cross at a legal crossing. The truly inhumane thing would be any adult that brings their children across the border illegally knowing what will happen if caught.

I have said I would be 100% against separating an asylum seeker and his/her family if he/she reports to a legal crossing site or an immigrant seeking legal immigration. But if you commit a crime I cannot blame the administration for detaining you for committing that crime; it serves as a deterent. Apparently there are those that do.

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 03:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, there's a difference between administering and enforcing.

What deterrent does anyone have for bringing their families across the border illegally (asylum seeker or not) if they know they will simply be released if caught?

Now knowing that you will be taken you will be taken into custody and separated from your family if caught will most likely motivate you to cross at a legal crossing. The truly inhumane thing would be any adult that brings their children across the border illegally knowing what will happen if caught.

I have said I would be 100% against separating an asylum seeker and his/her family if he/she reports to a legal crossing site or an immigrant seeking legal immigration. But if you commit a crime I cannot blame the administration for detaining you for committing that crime; it serves as a deterent. Apparently there are those that do.

If caught? These are people that turn themselves in. They aren't running from immigration enforcement. We are talking about asylum seekers that cross the border and look for someone to turn themselves in to. How many of these asylum seekers know that there is actually a difference in their treatment between crossing at a port of entry and walking up to an official versus walking across elsewhere and finding someone?

And these people are not "simply released." This is a false narrative. When they are released after capture they are given a court date. If they do not make that court date, then they get a deportation order against them. This is the way the processing has worked up until the Trump administration. Trying to claim that they a "simply released" or that the law was not being enforced are false claims.

[Millhouse]

(06-19-2018, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As someone that is constantly contacting elected officials about programs to help the impoverished, I am here to tell you that you can be concerned about both. Do I think we should be talking more about it in the media? Of course. The problem is that the elites that have overwhelming influence over both the media and our government are more in favor of protecting their wealth than helping the impoverished. They have convinced people that the policies that fill their pockets are more important than the policies that could actually help them.

If you would like to start a thread about child poverty, I'm all for it. But don't claim that people aren't about the well being of both immigrant children and the children already here.

Oh I agree with you, and I know plenty of people care to a point. I was just venting about how the 'elite' leaders in the country and the media are making this a big story when we hardly hear about the countless number of homeless and impoverished children from those very same people.

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 03:48 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Oh I agree with you, and I know plenty of people care to a point. I was just venting about how the 'elite' leaders in the country and the media are making this a big story when we hardly hear about the countless number of homeless and impoverished children from those very same people.

While I do get into these discussions on here, because it's what we're talking about and because they are important discussions, I don't focus on these outside of this forum. My focus on issues outside of here is more about social policy. Socioeconomic inequality is a big thing for me and it bothers me that it isn't talked about more. The reason issues like this one are in the media more is because those that pull those levers know these are wedge issues.

The majority of Americans support a more economically equal society than we have right now. The majority supports social programs designed to help the poor. However, the people that control the message don't allow those issues to be the topic of discussion long because it is a threat to their wealth. Whether this is a person on the right or the left ideologically, they are more concerned about keeping their wealth than they are about the well-being of the citizenry. If that means insuring that the rabble doesn't actually get messaging about just how ****** up our country is right now on that scale then so be it. Let's make sure they squabble over immigration instead!

But I'm on here mostly as a time waster. What I do when I'm writing to or calling elected officials, what I do in party meetings, etc., that is more reminiscent of the Poor People's Campaign than anything else. The dream of Dr. King to bring the poor people, white, black, brown, whatever, together to fight against the systems set up against the impoverished. The dream that we can move past the wedges used by the elites to divide us and focus on economic justice for all.

[Millhouse]

To comment on the separation of children issue, this is Trump's administration including Session's doing. They are lying about the 1997 and 2008 laws that they claim requires them to separate these kids. The only times kids would have been separated would be for cases of suspected human trafficking for example. Trump is saying that he is doing what the Democrats passed, which is a lie.

The zero-tolerance policy that was enacted a couple of months ago was 100% Trump's and Session's doing, and it also couples with the rollbacks of Obama's policies that included having tiers of who should get deported, like felons and violent criminals caught at the border at the top. Now the policy is just any general criminal offense, and with Session's (Trump's) zero-tolerance policy, they are saying those past laws have loopholes which requires them do this.

As mentioned above, this is a political ploy, in an attempt to get Congress to pass a bill that includes building a wall while addressing this issue. Blaming Democrats for this though is ridiculous, but Trump's base will believe it as opposed to simply using Google to look up those past laws themselves.

[Dill]

(06-19-2018, 01:10 PM)Millhouse Wrote: What irritates me the most is how so many people can get worked up and feel sorry for these illegal immigrant children, when at the same time there are numerous times the amount of children in the U.S. that are either homeless or living in horrible conditions. Depending on the study, that number is from the 100's of thousands to 2.5 million just a few years ago (just homeless children). Yet no one gets all worked up over them. But 2000 children at the border separated from parents that committed a crime by illegally crossing over, gasp!!

Er, people do get "worked up" about homeless children living in the US under horrible conditions--even when their parents have committed crimes.

The refugee children now in the news are there because of a Trump policy which has US law enforcement separating children from parents and leaving them in limbo, in cages no less. This is not quite the same as people losing their homes or children running away from home. I understand your point about media selection. But there is just no way "ordinary" homelessness can compete with cages on the news.

There are government programs addressing homeless issues, including those involving children.  This always comes up when people are talking about the minimum wage and low employment.

https://www.nlchp.org/documents/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet
https://nlchp.org/documents/WelcomeHome_TentCities
https://citylimits.org/2012/03/05/homelessness-its--about-race-not-just-poverty/
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/coordinated-entry-for-youth-brief.pdf

There are also many private organizations and churches which help with the problem.

https://www.playtimeproject.org/
http://horizonschildren.org/about-us/
https://www.voa.org/homeless-people
http://www.standupforkids.org/
https://www.covenanthouse.org/
http://www.nationalsafeplace.org/homeless-youth
https://www.wikihow.com/Help-Homeless-Children

It's a safe bet that all the people dedicating their lives to helping homeless children in the US are horrified by what is happening on the US border right now. I think they would also understand why this issue needs the attention it does right now.


They likely wouldn't see an either/or here.

[Dill]

(06-19-2018, 04:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: To comment on the separation of children issue, this is Trump's administration including Session's doing. They are lying about the 1997 and 2008 laws that they claim requires them to separate these kids. The only times kids would have been separated would be for cases of suspected human trafficking for example. Trump is saying that he is doing what the Democrats passed, which is a lie.

The zero-tolerance policy that was enacted a couple of months ago was 100% Trump's and Session's doing, and it also couples with the rollbacks of Obama's policies that included having tiers of who should get deported, like felons and violent criminals caught at the border at the top. Now the policy is just any general criminal offense, and with Session's (Trump's) zero-tolerance policy, they are saying those past laws have loopholes which requires them do this.

As mentioned above, this is a political ploy, in an attempt to get Congress to pass a bill that includes building a wall while addressing this issue. Blaming Democrats for this though is ridiculous, but Trump's base will believe it as opposed to simply using Google to look up those past laws themselves.

I agree with you on this.  I would add the point is to set the policy up as a law an order issues, so that the action of separating children and caging them can be "the parents' fault" because they broke the law and either we are a country of laws or we are not when it comes to refugees--just maybe not so much when it comes to presidential/WH staff conflicts of interest or hunting terrorists.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 04:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well maybe the next born-rich gazillionaire the republicans elect will have more awareness of the impoverished than Trump does.

That's the thing that baffles me, and I know this is going in a completely different direction, but some models in political science point to republics operating in a cyclical nature. Republic/democracy, oligarchy (which we are), and then a populist authoritarian. We forget how young our country really is, so we don't really see the cycle within our borders. Anyway, the part that I find baffling is that the corrective force of a populist authoritarian from an oligarchy is something that it seems like some people wanted, but they were fooled because they just put another elite in office! They made the oligarchy/plutocracy even worse!

Sorry, I'm done ranting about this in this thread.

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2018, 04:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's the thing that baffles me, and I know this is going in a completely different direction, but some models in political science point to republics operating in a cyclical nature. Republic/democracy, oligarchy (which we are), and then a populist authoritarian. We forget how young our country really is, so we don't really see the cycle within our borders. Anyway, the part that I find baffling is that the corrective force of a populist authoritarian from an oligarchy is something that it seems like some people wanted, but they were fooled because they just put another elite in office! They made the oligarchy/plutocracy even worse!

Sorry, I'm done ranting about this in this thread.

Ha, I actually deleted that post because I thought it seemed a bit too pessimistic even for me.  

[Dill]

(06-19-2018, 04:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I do get into these discussions on here, because it's what we're talking about and because they are important discussions, I don't focus on these outside of this forum. My focus on issues outside of here is more about social policy. Socioeconomic inequality is a big thing for me and it bothers me that it isn't talked about more. The reason issues like this one are in the media more is because those that pull those levers know these are wedge issues.

The majority of Americans support a more economically equal society than we have right now. The majority supports social programs designed to help the poor. However, the people that control the message don't allow those issues to be the topic of discussion long because it is a threat to their wealth. Whether this is a person on the right or the left ideologically, they are more concerned about keeping their wealth than they are about the well-being of the citizenry. If that means insuring that the rabble doesn't actually get messaging about just how ****** up our country is right now on that scale then so be it. Let's make sure they squabble over immigration instead!

As someone who also claims socioeconomic inequality as his big thing, I have difficulty seeing this "keep-their-wealth" priority as a problem equally afflicting "the right or the left ideologically."  Perhaps we understand "the left" differently.  

Also, there is some separation between "those who pull the levers" on wedge issues and the media. There are plenty of reporters/editors out there looking for good stories, and also to do some good beyond increasing their wealth and advancing their careers.  If a politician creates a wedge policy, as Trump has just done, they pretty much have to report it. It's not clear if that makes them part of the problem, if reporting a bad policy creates backlash and a course correction.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 04:45 PM)Dill Wrote: As someone who also claims socioeconomic inequality as his big thing, I have difficulty seeing this "keep-their-wealth" priority as a problem equally afflicting "the right or the left ideologically."  Perhaps we understand "the left" differently.  

I wouldn't say it is equal, I'm just saying the left is guilty of it as well. Especially when you look at the end of the era of big government and the rise of neo-liberalism.

(06-19-2018, 04:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, there is some separation between "those who pull the levers" on wedge issues and the media. There are plenty of reporters/editors out there looking for good stories, and also to do some good beyond increasing their wealth and advancing their careers.  If a politician creates a wedge policy, as Trump has just done, they pretty much have to report it. It's not clear if that makes them part of the problem, if reporting a bad policy creates backlash and a course correction.  

The indirect influence that the lever-pullers exert is done so on the policy makers and the media. Reporters and editors are not those I have issue with. It is the corporate overlords to which they get their paychecks.

Ok, I promise I'm done. If we wish to continue this discussion another thread would be more appropriate.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2018, 03:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If caught? These are people that turn themselves in. They aren't running from immigration enforcement. We are talking about asylum seekers that cross the border and look for someone to turn themselves in to. How many of these asylum seekers know that there is actually a difference in their treatment between crossing at a port of entry and walking up to an official versus walking across elsewhere and finding someone?

And these people are not "simply released." This is a false narrative. When they are released after capture they are given a court date. If they do not make that court date, then they get a deportation order against them. This is the way the processing has worked up until the Trump administration. Trying to claim that they a "simply released" or that the law was not being enforced are false claims.

I have no idea how many currently know the difference between illegal and legal crossing, but I'm sure they are figuring it out.

Oh, they re released with a court date, I take back that they are simply released. They are released with an appointment. Trying to claim thus is the way it has "worked" in the past is simply a false narrative. Many folks see it as not working; as I have seen figures that report upwards of 90% do not make their court appearance.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-19-2018, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no idea how many currently know the difference between illegal and legal crossing, but I'm sure they are figuring it out.

Oh, they re released with a court date, I take back that they are simply released. They are released with an appointment. Trying to claim thus is the way it has "worked" in the past is simply a false narrative. Many folks see it as not working; as I have seen figures that report upwards of 90% do not make their court appearance.  

Which is why I discussed in my posts about what should be done devoting resources to reduce the backlog. Reducing the backlog in the processing would reduce that number because the time frame is what causes them to lose track of these people.

The point here is that there are, and were, ways to improve the enforcement of the law without taking it in the direction the administration did. The choice the administration made in their enforcement is why they get some of the blame. The children are victims. They are victims of violence in their home countries. They are victims of the decisions by their parent(s)/guardian(s). They are victims of the zero tolerance policy by the Trump administration.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2018, 05:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is why I discussed in my posts about what should be done devoting resources to reduce the backlog. Reducing the backlog in the processing would reduce that number because the time frame is what causes them to lose track of these people.

The point here is that there are, and were, ways to improve the enforcement of the law without taking it in the direction the administration did. The choice the administration made in their enforcement is why they get some of the blame. The children are victims. They are victims of violence in their home countries. They are victims of the decisions by their parent(s)/guardian(s). They are victims of the zero tolerance policy by the Trump administration.

90% do not show up for their appointment. If that is not grounds to institute a zero tolerance policy, then I'm not sure what is. We do all we can to place these children in the custody of relatives and treat them no differently than we do the child of a US citizen that is arrested for committing a crime. Of course I wish the children were not in the situation they are, but the current administration did not make them victims.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2018, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I have seen figures that report upwards of 90% do not make their court appearance.  

(06-19-2018, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 90% do not show up for their appointment.

Actually you have never "seen figures" like this because they do not exist.  This is what happens when you live in an echo chamber and believe everything they tell you without checking any facts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/10/jeff-flake/sen-jeff-flake-says-90-percent-immigrants-given-co/

.  .  .  figures from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is tasked by the Justice Department with handling immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews and administrative hearings. Between 2003 and 2012, the percentage of all immigrants who failed to appear in court after being released has bounced between 20 percent and 40 percent, settling in at about 30 percent at the end of that time span. (No data for children specifically is available from this long-running data set.)

"I’m not aware of data that shows a 90 percent no-show rate," said Marc R. Rosenblum, deputy director of the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program. He added that the long-term range of 20 percent to 40 percent matches what the VERA Institute found between 1997 and 2000 when it studied the issue on a federal contract to track individual immigration cases.

The Bipartisan Policy Center also expressed skepticism about the 90 percent figure. "Based on the federal data we’ve seen, we know that between 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 80 percent of all immigrants showed up for their court appearance," said Rosemarie Calabro Tully, a spokeswoman for the group. She later passed us the estimate Osuna gave to the Senate committee.

When we contacted Flake’s office, they said the senator’s source for the statistic was a comment by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., at a media breakfast sponsored by the [i]Christian Science Monitor [/i]on June 26. The [i]Monitor [/i]didn’t print a direct quote, but here’s an excerpt from the article: "Right now, (Goodlatte) said, the law does not allow minors to be held in a facility, so they are released to relatives or foster care, and then given a court date to reappear. More than 90 percent do not return, he said."

So we contacted Goodlatte’s office. Goodlatte’s office said that while visiting the McAllen Border Patrol Station in the Rio Grande Valley in July, Goodlatte heard from Border Patrol agents that only 26 percent of those who were detained failed to show up for removal proceedings. They said officials didn’t give a percentage for those who had been released and failed to appear.

They cited an article in Newsmax, a conservative online publication, that cited an anonymous "senior Los Angeles County Sheriff's detective who routinely deals with illegal immigrants" who said a "massive number — 80 to 90 percent" do not show up for deportation hearings. However, Goodlatte’s office acknowledged this was anecdotal evidence.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2018, 06:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually you have never "seen figures" like this because they do not exist.  This is what happens when you live in an echo chamber and believe everything they tell you without checking any facts.

Yeah I've got the internet too...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/dhs-report-84-illegal-alien-adults-not-court-final-case-hearing

Quote:A recent report from the Department of Justice shows that of the nearly 12,500 illegal alien adults who were apprehended with children at the U.S. border and released between July 18, 2014, and May 26, 2015, whose immigration cases have been completed, at least 84 percent did not appear in court for the final decision.

So I'm assuming those outside the "echo chamber" go with about 26% don't show up.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2018, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah I've got the internet too...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/dhs-report-84-illegal-alien-adults-not-court-final-case-hearing


So I'm assuming those outside the "echo chamber" go with about 26% don't show up.

I am sure many of these people did show up initially, but only failed to appear for the final order because they knew they were going to lose.

For example look at the numbers for the children.

6,248 children were given orders for removal by an immigration judge, with 5,453 handed down [i]in absentia[/i]. This equates to about 51 percent of the total number of closed cases, and 87 percent of the total number of removal orders.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2018, 06:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am sure many of these people did show up initially, but only failed to appear for the final order because they knew they were going to lose.

For example look at the numbers for the children.

6,248 children were given orders for removal by an immigration judge, with 5,453 handed down [i]in absentia[/i]. This equates to about 51 percent of the total number of closed cases, and 87 percent of the total number of removal orders.

So you think this makes your case? Sad.

You have asked conservatives to be honest in the past; let me see if liberals can be:

Do you think the percentage of illegal immigrants that do not show up for their case is closer to the low of 20% your article suggested or the high of 90% that mine did? Any other liberal can feel free to answer as well.