Kids in cages; how does anyone defend this

@layman,

I just gave you 3 quotes from the corrected WaPo article.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

This is the last time I'm commenting on this issue with you. What a waste of time it's been.

1 Reply

Trump is going to come out in the next couple days and say exactly what I'm saying here and you're going to pretend that this conversation never happened and that Trump is the greatest thing since sex.

You guys have been wrong on this all freaking week and Trump has pulled the rug out under you at least twice now.

I'm sorry you're so sore, but really...

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I just gave you 3 quotes from the corrected WaPo article.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

This is the last time I'm commenting on this issue with you. What a waste of time it's been.

I already did. To the extent that the article further speculates about what is "likely to happen," due to lack of resources, that, even if it comes to pass, is NOT the "catch and release" policy of Obama. Even if released on bail, they will be charged with a crime, not a civil misdemeanor.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Trump is going to come out in the next couple days and say exactly what I'm saying here ...

What is it, exactly, that you think you are "saying here?" Whatever it is, it shows a misunderstanding of the facts.

0 Replies

Here's some of the problems.

1. Under no circumstances can any child be sent, with their parents, to an adult jail if their parents are charged and booked into jail for a crime.

2. Aliens can be held, pending resolution of their cases, in a "detention center" (which is not a "jail") pending resolution of their case. Whether it's for more than 20 days, or not. Generally this has been done with immigrants who are seeking asylum and who have committed no crime.

3. However, under the Flores case, CHILDREN cannot be kept in detention centers for more than 20 days. After that time, they must be placed with a responsible adult or in a licensed child care facility. Since detention centers are not that, the law mandates that they be shipped out after 20 days (you can thank the ACLU for that).

Among other things, Trump's order seeks an amendment to the Flores settlement to allow children to be kept in detention centers with their parents, even if they have been criminally charged, and even if it is for more than 20 days:

Quote:

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

1 Reply

The order also says this;

Quote:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code. This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

2. Aliens can be held, pending resolution of their cases in a "detention center" (which is not a "jail") pending resolution of their case. Whether it's for more than 20 days, or not. Generally this has been done with immigrants who are seeking asylum and who have committed no crime.

Well, I'm having trouble with the distinction.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

layman wrote:

2. Aliens can be held, pending resolution of their cases in a "detention center" (which is not a "jail") pending resolution of their case. Whether it's for more than 20 days, or not. Generally this has been done with immigrants who are seeking asylum and who have committed no crime.

Well, I'm having trouble with the distinction.

Well, Rog, adult jails hold more than just immigrants. They also hold murders, rapists, child molestors, and every other kind of criminal. See the distinction now?

1 Reply

@roger,

The fact that kids are being taken away from their parents somehow isn't seen as a "problem" to Trump supporters.

Most Americans see this as a big problem.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

consider yourselves all asked

over and over til you answer

Would it be better to just turn them all loose in the Mexican desert unsupervised?

Should we give each kid half a canteen of water and a box of granola bars before we tell them to start walking, or should we make them cross the desert with nothing at all?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

What do you propose we do?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

What I’d like to see is a) detain and determine if immigrant is a violent criminal to best of ability b) if yes, send back to country of origin c) if no, come into the country and get your court date for your case.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The fact that kids are being taken away from their parents somehow isn't seen as a "problem" to Trump supporters.
Most Americans see this as a big problem.

If all you want is to send children to prison alongside their parents, then go ahead and support legislation that does that.

But the legislative process typically involves compromise, so when someone else includes something that they want (funding for a wall perhaps), if you really have no real reason for opposing that provision, you should maybe not undermine your goals by opposing the entire package.

Just a (logical) suggestion.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Part of the problem is that Trump supporters greatly exaggerate the risk these families present to the US. That is why the response is so drastic.

I favor a moderate response where the needs of immigrant children are seen as more important than the needs of law enforcement. There are several possible ways to form a balanced policy that maintains a reasonable border in a humane way.

I would support housing immigrant families in humane facilities. I would also support ankle bracelets, check-ins or other means to ensure immigrants make it to their court dates.

This drastic police action is unnecessary, Trump is trying to make a get tough policy for his base that see immigrant children as Invaders.

I would strongly support a balanced policy. They are pulling crying kids away from their parents, most Americans don't see this as reasonable.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

What do you propose we do?

The real answer... I propose we give control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. But, I don't think that's what you were asking.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You haven’t been supporting compromise lately Oralloy. You’ve been saying that it’s all the Democrats fault that they just don’t give Trump everything he wants.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

If they want to pass legislation, they need to work with him to pass something that he can support. That's just the way it works.

Do the Democrats have any objection to the wall other than "Trump wants it, so let's screw Trump"?

0 Replies

By the way, most of these cases can be resolved summarily, by way of an expedited removal proceeding, which does NOT require a hearing before a judge. An immigrant can always leave voluntarily, too, of course.

Although Trump is charging them all with crimes for illegal entry, which can get them a 6 month sentence, as a matter of practice they are just sentenced to time served and booted out of the country.

So it's mainly just the asylum-seekers who are affected here. In the past 80% of asylum-seekers have presented frivolous claims, but, even so, they are entitled to a hearing, if they can present a "credible claim" for refugee status.

Quote:

Expedited removal is the term for a process related to immigration enforcement in the United States during which a non-citizen is denied entry to and/or physically removed from the United States, without going through removal proceedings (which involve a hearing before an immigration judge). The legal authority for expedited removal (in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal

0 Replies

As far as asylum claims go, cheese-eaters like the ACLU go into Mexico and hold "seminars" for the border-crashers, telling them exactly what they have to say in order to mandate an asylum hearing, before they present themselves at a port of entry.

The left will go to any lengths to import undeserving foreigners into this country.

0 Replies

The lack of Congressional action on immigration law reform has been a festering problem in this country for almost 40 years. We have drifted into a situation in which the law is ignored or unenforced, and in which Presidents are issuing executive directives, such as Obama's for DACA, to relieve specific issues in the law without required Congressional action, and in defiance of the Constitution. Throughout, our politicians have avoided action precisely because the issue is a volatile one with many voters. This is, of course a highly unsatisfactory situation that undermines our whole legal structure, the core of our Democratic system, and our Constitution.

President Trump has shown the courage to face this issue directly, and indeed has made a winning issue (at least among his supporters) out of it. The prolonged legislative inaction and criticism of the current situation, coming chiefly from Democrat Congressional leaders, is truly a contemptible abrogation of their sworn duty under our Constitution. Very Sad.

1 Reply

Kids in cages; how does anyone defend this

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know