Why Is Our Government Putting People In Cages?

[BeginnersMind]

6 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Did you know that when the Council was created in 2006 the Bush administration refused to join? Do you know why?

 

The UN Human Rights Council, like the U.N. and many other multinational agreements, treaties, and all of human interaction—is messy. Work together to fix it. Be a grown up country. Don’t just take your ball and sulk off and call names. 

 

International diplomacy requires engaged conversation, even when others are making statements we believe are absurd. 

 

To whoever said this was being duscussed in that global conspiracy thread, sorry I missed it. I don’t engage in the conspiracy stuff that dominates many here, and centers in that thread. 

 

Schumer and his gang by the way are fools. He is right that Trump could fix this with a flick of his wrist, but he could support any bill to fix it too. Either way, fix it and take the moral high ground. Ist ad he and Trump wallow in the muck. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by BeginnersMind

[ALF]

5 hours ago, HappyDays said:

I'm changing my tactic in this thread.

 

I'll take you all at your word that you are genuinely concerned about child trafficking victims. That we can't know for sure which adults are lying about the children they're traveling with.

 

Luckily there's an easy solution:

 

https://dnacenter.com/blog/long-take-get-dna-paternity-test-results/

 

Paternity test results take 1-2 days and they cost a maximum of $500. Let's say we ran it on 20,000 adult men. That would cost at most a total of $10 million, or 0.00025% of the US federal budget in 2017.

 

We all agree that separating parents from their children is wrong. We all agree that even if the parents are wrong for illegally crossing the border, the children don't deserve to be punished with forced separation from the only family they know.

 

So who here would support a policy that ended zero-tolerance family separation and replaced it with state funded paternity tests?

 

I agree with this 100%. If a minor is brought across the border by a non family member , US authorities take custody of that child and try to unite with relatives in this country or Mexico. If the child is from Central America try for a safe foster family in this country, with monitor by CPS till 18.

 

Child smugglers go to prison  then deport. 

 

Real asylum seekers from Central America as a family unit need to be kept together. Treat these victims with dignity, they will pay this country back 100 fold. Just do the right thing.

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

No they are not choosing separation. Many tried to present themselves at legal ports of entry but were turned away. If it were me and my child I wouldn't think twice about trying to cross over illegally at that point. There is a perfectly legal procedure for seeking political asylum at these legal ports of entry, but what should they do when they arrive to find that procedure blocked? I suppose they should just suck it up and go home, but if you're a parent you know that is not really an option for them. Also since this policy is new the first families affected by it literally would not have known about it, and therefore couldn't be held responsible for choosing their punishment.

 

The law posted above refers to persons who are criminally prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. Past administrations would not prosecute every single person that crossed illegally, certainly not those with a "credible fear" of their country of origin (asylum seekers). The Trump administration, driven by Jeff Sessions, has changed that policy and now prosecutes every single person that illegally crosses the border regardless of their situation. There is no law which says they have to do that. They intentionally created a zero tolerance policy and are trying to hide behind a law that wouldn't apply if the zero tolerance policy wasn't in effect.

Do you have a link about the many families that went to legal ports of entry and sought asylum?

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, Buftex said:

And that right there is what makes you so repulsive. You know better, but you take glee. You are like a walking, talking, typing Chinese finger trap. Smug, hypocritical and so high and mighty.  Keep telling everyone you genuinely can not stand Trump, but take every opportunity you can find to contort your ethiics to support his bull ****.  

You know what I find repulsive?  When people have it plainly shown to them how the government is horrifically corrupt to the point where the top agency in the Justice Department is doing what it can to elect the most status quo candidate in history and whine about Trump's ethics.  

 

It it can be argued that every candidate from the slate of early primaries represented the status quo with two exceptions:. Trump and Sanders.  The DNC delegate selection process doomed Sanders from the start and he still put a major scare in Hillary.  Trump and his basket of deplorables easily beat most of the Republican field and had too much momentum for Cruz, Lazio and the Guy from Ohio who wanted to lose to Hillary.  Voters clearly wanted out from under the real deplorables.

 

Can anyone deny that the system needed a shakeup?  I just don't see how. It can certainly be argued that Trump isn't the best choice to do that.  But Sanders, a commie, was the only other available choice unless you want to make an argument for Cruz.  

 

And in in all of this you find LA repulsive because he chuckles at the circumstances?  Ok.  It makes some sense I guess because you looked the other way from the NBA status quo even when I told you the next four champions had been decided and who they would be, and how they would win......and then it all played out.

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm still confused after a week of conflicting reports from the media and the different players in Trump's administration.  Sessions, Miller, and Kelly called their policy a deterrent for those who broke the law.  Nielsen said they don't have a policy of separating children at the border.  Trump's all over the place.  The Democrats are focused solely on going over the top to make Trump look like the bad guy.

 

The problem seems to be that each administration has the "discretion" of what to do when people try to cross illegally.  It would be nice if we had a consistent policy that each administration has to follow (whether there's a Democrat or Republican president).

Why are you confused? Are you just not trying to understand? Trump implemented this policy.

 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

7 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

No they are not choosing separation. Many tried to present themselves at legal ports of entry but were turned away. If it were me and my child I wouldn't think twice about trying to cross over illegally at that point. There is a perfectly legal procedure for seeking political asylum at these legal ports of entry, but what should they do when they arrive to find that procedure blocked? I suppose they should just suck it up and go home, but if you're a parent you know that is not really an option for them. Also since this policy is new the first families affected by it literally would not have known about it, and therefore couldn't be held responsible for choosing their punishment.

 

The law posted above refers to persons who are criminally prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. Past administrations would not prosecute every single person that crossed illegally, certainly not those with a "credible fear" of their country of origin (asylum seekers). The Trump administration, driven by Jeff Sessions, has changed that policy and now prosecutes every single person that illegally crosses the border regardless of their situation. There is no law which says they have to do that. They intentionally created a zero tolerance policy and are trying to hide behind a law that wouldn't apply if the zero tolerance policy wasn't in effect.

There are no laws on the books that say you have to prosecute criminals committing crimes?  

 

Interesting.  

[4merper4mer]

7 hours ago, HappyDays said:

And if anyone wants to read more about how the Trump administration specifically created this new policy, this article explains it in detail:

 

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/06/18/fact-check-no-law-requires-family-separation-border-despite-trump-administrations-claims

 

In anticipation of cries of media bias, I will note that this paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, however she was the first Democrat they had endorsed since FDR. They are not a liberal news rag. These are the facts of this new policy and no one can pretend that it is a simple matter of enforcing existing laws.

So if he simply decided not to enforce the first law then there would be no need to enforce the second law?

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

There are no laws on the books that say you have to prosecute criminals committing crimes?  

 

Interesting.  

People seeking asylum are criminals? No 

[ALF]

13 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

There are no laws on the books that say you have to prosecute criminals committing crimes?  

 

Interesting.  

 

Those from Central America who qualify for asylum  are a special case. They may not know the proper procedure , give them a break on a case by case basis . They are very desperate after a long and dangerous journey.

 

Of course weed out criminals and MS-13

Edited June 20, 2018 by ALF

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

People seeking asylum are criminals? No 

Perhaps you misread what I quoted.

12 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

The Trump administration, driven by Jeff Sessions, has changed that policy and now prosecutes every single person that illegally crosses the border regardless of their situation. There is no law which says they have to do that. 

 

1 minute ago, ALF said:

 

Those from Central America who qualify for asylum  are a special case. They may not know the proper procedure , give them a break on a case by case basis . They are very desperate after a long and dangerous journey.

When was ignorance of the law an absolute defense?

 

More reason to build a wall. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

Those from Central America who qualify for asylum  are a special case.

 

Why?

 

Why are they special?

 

[ALF]

2 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Perhaps you misread what I quoted.

 

When was ignorance of the law an absolute defense?

 

More reason to build a wall. 

 

I have no problem with a wall and tight border security. Screen carefully everyone who is legally admitted.

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Why?

 

Why are they special?

 

 

Questions and Answers: Asylum Eligibility and Applications

 

Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?

Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

You are not currently in removal proceedings

You file an asylum application within one year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

9 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

I have no problem with a wall and tight border security. Screen carefully everyone who is legally admitted.

 

Questions and Answers: Asylum Eligibility and Applications

 

Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?

Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

You are not currently in removal proceedings

You file an asylum application within one year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications

 

Interesting, but it doesn't answer the question.

 

Why are asylum seekers from central america special?

 

[ALF]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Interesting, but it doesn't answer the question.

 

Why are asylum seekers from central america special?

 

 

Their lives are threatened especially if young family members do not become gang members. If I understand what is going on there, not Mexico.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, ALF said:

 

Their lives are threatened especially if young family members do not become gang members. If I understand what is going on there, not Mexico.

 

So they're seeking "asylum" from criminal gangs, not from repressive governments.

 

I should also note that these same gangs exist HERE. How will asylum help those people?

 

It won't.

 

 

[ALF]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

So they're seeking "asylum" from criminal gangs, not from repressive governments.

 

I should also note that these same gangs exist HERE. How will asylum help those people?

 

It won't.

 

 

 

The problem in Central America is that their governments are unable to protect them and are corrupt. Poverty creates dire problems in some places.

 

Jail or deport gang members here .

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, ALF said:

 

The problem in Central America is that their governments are unable to protect them and are corrupt

 

 

So that's our problem, how?

 

[ALF]

The US abides by the Geneva Convention for refugee asylum , but I could be wrong. 

 

A case by case humanitarian plan is still the right thing to do.

[GG]

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

So that's our problem, how?

 

 

By extension it's America's back yard.  If you ignore it, don't be surprised about the vermin that will take root there.  US would get a far bigger bang for the buck by improving the conditions in Central America than trying to build the wall

[4merper4mer]

9 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

The problem in Central America is that their governments are unable to protect them and are corrupt. Poverty creates dire problems in some places.

 

Jail or deport gang members here .

If only their governments weren't corrupt and had properly implemented communism everything would be awesome.

 

Jail or deport gang members?  What if the swallow their membership cards when they are in line for their interviews?  How will we know?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

By extension it's America's back yard.  If you ignore it, don't be surprised about the vermin that will take root there.  US would get a far bigger bang for the buck by improving the conditions in Central America than trying to build the wall

 

I'm all for assisting them in keeping their people there.

 

But at the same time, I don't think we should be importing more people into the country with no measurable skills that will add little to nothing to the economy or tax rolls.

 

[4merper4mer]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

By extension it's America's back yard.  If you ignore it, don't be surprised about the vermin that will take root there.  US would get a far bigger bang for the buck by improving the conditions in Central America than trying to build the wall

Bingo.  We could start by supporting a fight against communists in El Salvador.  The left would support that I'm sure.

[Tiberius]

44 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Why?

 

Why are they special?

 

Partly because it's our fault their area is so screwed up. Guatelama had a democracy before we swooped in and saved the United Fruit Company from having to deal with workers that had rights.

[GG]

8 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I'm all for assisting them in keeping their people there.

 

But at the same time, I don't think we should be importing more people into the country with no measurable skills that will add little to nothing to the economy or tax rolls.

 

 

Massively ignorant & incorrect

 

8 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Bingo.  We could start by supporting a fight against communists in El Salvador.  The left would support that I'm sure.

 

You mean Nicaragua?

[ALF]

The bottom line will be what voters decide in Nov and again in 2020.

 

I accept  the will of the voters . Trump was legally elected I have no problem with that.

[4merper4mer]

16 minutes ago, GG said:

 

 

 

You mean Nicaragua?

Heck anywhere.  Lefties love helping other nations develop capitalist systems that actually work.

[3rdnlng]

9 hours ago, HappyDays said:

I'm changing my tactic in this thread.

 

I'll take you all at your word that you are genuinely concerned about child trafficking victims. That we can't know for sure which adults are lying about the children they're traveling with.

 

Luckily there's an easy solution:

 

https://dnacenter.com/blog/long-take-get-dna-paternity-test-results/

 

Paternity test results take 1-2 days and they cost a maximum of $500. Let's say we ran it on 20,000 adult men. That would cost at most a total of $10 million, or 0.00025% of the US federal budget in 2017.

 

We all agree that separating parents from their children is wrong. We all agree that even if the parents are wrong for illegally crossing the border, the children don't deserve to be punished with forced separation from the only family they know.

 

So who here would support a policy that ended zero-tolerance family separation and replaced it with state funded paternity tests?

Sounds like a reasonable solution, but we still must get over the Schumer Factor. Schumer is fighting any law that would make keeping families together. He wants the President to break the present law instead.

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, ALF said:

 

I agree with this 100%. If a minor is brought across the border by a non family member , US authorities take custody of that child and try to unite with relatives in this country or Mexico. If the child is from Central America try for a safe foster family in this country, with monitor by CPS till 18.

 

Child smugglers go to prison  then deport. 

 

Real asylum seekers from Central America as a family unit need to be kept together. Treat these victims with dignity, they will pay this country back 100 fold. Just do the right thing.

You see, once all thebullshit  is thrown out we basically agree. It is the law that if a person/family wants asylum they must present themselves at a point of entry and claim asylum. The processing centers are inundated with people and don't turn away asylum seekers but tell them they have to wait their turn. These people are not separated unless it is determined that they aren't a family. People/families who try to cross the border illegally will end up getting separated though. This is basically protective custody for the children until a relative or sponsor can be found for them. Also, the "cage" pictures we are seeing are from several years ago or from the processing centers where they stay for just a short time. The dems are distorting what is going on purely for political purposes and are proving that they don't really give a damn about the children except for how they can help them politically.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Massively ignorant & incorrect

 

 

What portion of the illegals coming to the US from central america have 4-year degrees, advanced skills or some other form of marketable skill that will add to the economy?

 

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think a lot of physicists, doctors, or computer programmers are hoofing it on foot or the roofs of trains to get here. because THOSE central americans are staying put. It's the poor, the uneducated and the unskilled that are coming here to seek work as maids, farm laborers, construction laborers, etc.

 

As an example: just down the street from me there's a house holding at least a dozen central american men. They're not here to program in Python. They're here to pick blueberries.

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by joesixpack

[DC Tom]

10 hours ago, HappyDays said:

I'm changing my tactic in this thread.

 

I'll take you all at your word that you are genuinely concerned about child trafficking victims. That we can't know for sure which adults are lying about the children they're traveling with.

 

Luckily there's an easy solution:

 

https://dnacenter.com/blog/long-take-get-dna-paternity-test-results/

 

Paternity test results take 1-2 days and they cost a maximum of $500. Let's say we ran it on 20,000 adult men. That would cost at most a total of $10 million, or 0.00025% of the US federal budget in 2017.

 

We all agree that separating parents from their children is wrong. We all agree that even if the parents are wrong for illegally crossing the border, the children don't deserve to be punished with forced separation from the only family they know.

 

So who here would support a policy that ended zero-tolerance family separation and replaced it with state funded paternity tests?

 

Violation of due process.  It would have to be court-ordered, which means detention until the hearing, which means separating families...

 

Despite what that !@#$ Schumer would have us believe, it's not an easy problem to solve.

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

What portion of the illegals coming to the US from central america have 4-year degrees, advanced skills or some other form of marketable skill that will add to the economy?

 

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think a lot of physicists, doctors, or computer programmers are hoofing it on foot or the roofs of trains to get here. because THOSE central americans are staying put. It's the poor, the uneducated and the unskilled that are coming here to seek work as maids, farm laborers, construction laborers, etc.

 

 

 What portion of 4-year degrees impart "measurable skills?"  Moron.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 What portion of 4-year degrees impart "measurable skills?"  Moron.

As compared to the education level of the average migrant?

 

Quite a bit.

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

If only their governments weren't corrupt and had properly implemented communism everything would be awesome.

 

Jail or deport gang members?  What if the swallow their membership cards when they are in line for their interviews?  How will we know?

Ask this fellow:

[GG]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

What portion of the illegals coming to the US from central america have 4-year degrees, advanced skills or some other form of marketable skill that will add to the economy?

 

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think a lot of physicists, doctors, or computer programmers are hoofing it on foot or the roofs of trains to get here. because THOSE central americans are staying put. It's the poor, the uneducated and the unskilled that are coming here to seek work as maids, farm laborers, construction laborers, etc.

 

As an example: just down the street from me there's a house holding at least a dozen central american men. They're not here to program in Python. They're here to pick blueberries.

 

 

 

 

And where do you think there's a labor shortage?

 

As Tom asks, what the hell does a 4-year degree have to do with marketable skills?  IF anything, there's an overabundance of 4-yr college grads with zero marketable skills for the work that needs to be done.

[Koko78]

9 hours ago, HappyDays said:

So you mean to tell me this policy is not actually about stopping child sex trafficking, but that it is about punishment/deterrence? I guess you will have to take that up with others in this thread who explained to me that that has nothing to do with it. Apparently Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump are fighting child sex trafficking. Someone should tell them my idea.

 

So you meant to tell us all that there can only be one purpose behind any policy, to the exclusion of all others? This, by the way, is how you idiots get more Trump.

 

Your idea is stupid, by the way, and doesn't address the minor problem of what to do with the children while their parents are incarcerated pending extradition...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, GG said:

 

And where do you think there's a labor shortage?

 

As Tom asks, what the hell does a 4-year degree have to do with marketable skills?  IF anything, there's an overabundance of 4-yr college grads with zero marketable skills for the work that needs to be done.

 

How is it then that other advanced industrial countries like, say, New Zealand and Australia manage without letting hordes of unskilled laborers into their country unchecked?

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by joesixpack

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

What portion of the illegals coming to the US from central america have 4-year degrees, advanced skills or some other form of marketable skill that will add to the economy?

 

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think a lot of physicists, doctors, or computer programmers are hoofing it on foot or the roofs of trains to get here.

 

People other than college pukes contribute to the economy you know.

 

The whole thing blows:

 

Press: "Oh these poor oppressed people."  BS.  If these same people were clinging to their bibles and guns or could not be exploited to expand programs the press would hate them.

 

Schumer and company:  Never have and never will give crap one about these individuals.  The only benefit is to make their opponents look bad.

 

Chamber of commerce: Yay free labor for us.  Who cares about costs to others filtered through the government?

 

Countries of origin: WTF

 

Smugglers:  Nice work taking people's entire wealth to sneak them in and then go back and get another batch.  Who cares if they die along the way or get turned back as long as we get paid.

 

Gangs and other criminals coming in:  Watering down the story of people who may legitimately have list all hope and headed for the border.  Muddy the waters in hopes that weak minded US politicians will throw up their hands and let everyone in.

 

Phonies abound and the people truly in need have no true voice at all.  

 

 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

9 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

No they are not choosing separation. Many tried to present themselves at legal ports of entry but were turned away. If it were me and my child I wouldn't think twice about trying to cross over illegally at that point. There is a perfectly legal procedure for seeking political asylum at these legal ports of entry, but what should they do when they arrive to find that procedure blocked? I suppose they should just suck it up and go home, but if you're a parent you know that is not really an option for them. Also since this policy is new the first families affected by it literally would not have known about it, and therefore couldn't be held responsible for choosing their punishment.

 

The law posted above refers to persons who are criminally prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. Past administrations would not prosecute every single person that crossed illegally, certainly not those with a "credible fear" of their country of origin (asylum seekers). The Trump administration, driven by Jeff Sessions, has changed that policy and now prosecutes every single person that illegally crosses the border regardless of their situation. There is no law which says they have to do that. They intentionally created a zero tolerance policy and are trying to hide behind a law that wouldn't apply if the zero tolerance policy wasn't in effect.

If any parent here endangered the welfare of our child/children the way these illegal immigrants are, we would lose custody of our kids forever. Why should we be treated differently than the illegal immigrants?

 

If the kid is with someone other than their parents, it is simply irresponsible of us to NOT take them into our care, knowing the human trafficking problem at the border.

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

As compared to the education level of the average migrant?

 

Quite a bit.

 

 

Most immigrants I know (quite a few) have very marketable trade skills and no degree.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Chamber of commerce: Yay free labor for us.  Who cares about costs to others filtered through the government?

And this right here is the root of the problem.

 

This is why the penalties for hiring illegals need to be draconian, to the point of potentially bankrupting such businesses. It just can't be tolerated.

 

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Most immigrants I know (quite a few) have very marketable trade skills and no degree.

 

How many migrant farm laborers do you know? Maids? Construction laborers?

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by joesixpack

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

How is it then that other advanced industrial countries like, say, New Zealand and Australia manage without letting hordes of unskilled laborers into their country unchecked?

 

 

I'll take, "Because those countries adapt their immigration laws in line with economic needs?" for $100.

 

US immigration laws haven't changed in nearly 3 decades despite the huge need for low skill labor.