Do you think it's wrong to separate illegal border crossers adult's and children?

[guanophore]

The same way any government action is funded - through taxation, fees, etc.

But your foundation is not based upon the needs of the government or it’s citizens. Your foundation is based upon the moral imperative that Christians treat others as though they are Christ Himself. You are demanding the government act according to your moral values, rather than the Church.

Why should taxpayers be forced to support Christian ideals?

What I do see, right here in this thread, is a sorry collection of excuses and justifications. . . and very little sincere concern for these young human beings.

For shame! When you look in the mirror, do you not see the devil sitting on your shoulder?

Perhaps because I have not seen anything that “excuses or justifies” what has happened to these innocent human beings? I have commented on what is, not on what should be.

I already am.

May God richly bless your efforts, and all those who are likewise engaged!

I already have.

Let us pray that sufficient Christians will step forward in this way until the detention problem is resolved, as well as to work on making permanent changes!

Yes. I’m already donating my money and my time and my technical skills to an organization that does just that.

And my wife is one of those lawyers.

May the fruit of both of your labors been enriched, your tent pegs widened, and others be inspired by your example.

 

[Inisfallen]

Why should taxpayers be forced to support Christian ideals?

The idea that the well-being of children should be of paramount importance is hardly unique to Christianity. I would say that it’s a public good.

As for the rest of your post, thank you for your kind wishes!

 

[guanophore]

The idea that the well-being of children should be of paramount importance is hardly unique to Christianity. I would say that it’s a public good.

Honestly, the well being of children is not a priority for this administration, even those that are citizens, much less “illegal aliens”.

I agree, it is a public good, and there are plenty of children already within the borders that are not well served, as I am sure you are aware.

 

[Sunbreak]

No, I do not believe it’s wrong in all cases. If the parent is going to be incarcerated, are you going to put the child in jail too? I personally believe in turning them all away immediately. Someone should go through the right process to come here.

 

[Sarcelle]

You don’t have to tell me about the immigration process. I am a legal immigrant.

If the immigration process is too complicated than it needs reform. However those who sneak across the border should not be awarded with an instant visa while those who come in legally are left waiting in line
and punished because they followed the law.

How just is that?

 

[benjamin1973]

That’s not what the OP is about, though.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Imagine the discussion around the mid 1800s…“He can’t just head up north, he is owned and a darn good price was paid for him. Crops are comin in, …and it’s all legal” I got the papers to prove it!~!~Even calling persons “aliens” quite frankly makes me ill…Refer to them as they are. Children of God made in HIs image and likeness and then back to everyone with your legal rules and reg’s.

 

[Augustinian]

The Gallup organization has done polls and figured that about 150 million people from around the world would like to move to the United States. Open borders and the abolishment of ICE, as suggested, would really change the country.

That would be an incredible burden on the country and the taxpayers.

 

[F_Marturana]

I’m adding that international law regarding asylum seekers is that they aren’t to be criminally charged for seeking asylum.

This has been a human rights fiasco.

 

[F_Marturana]

It’s ironic, Catholic immigrants weren’t historically greeted with welcome signs.

“Irish need not apply.”

Catholic immigrants weren’t wealthy folks deciding to come here to broaden their horizons.

They came because they were poor and suffering.

 

[Augustinian]

It’s ironic, Catholic immigrants weren’t historically greeted with welcome signs.

“Irish need not apply.”

Catholic immigrants weren’t wealthy folks deciding to come here to broaden their horizons.

They came because they were poor and suffering.

Actually, my immigrant Catholic grandfather came to the United States to broaden his horizons, the skills he had were needed in the challenging field of coal excavation and transportation. America needed and welcomed men with strong backs, regardless of their religious beliefs. In actuality, his Catholic faith probably helped him out in the vetting process, sort of ruled out the idea he was a bolshevik- who they did try to filter out and send back.

He came here because he thought he could make better money here than in the backwaters of the Austro Hungarian empire. And he was right, by the way.

 

[Augustinian]

Of course, America virtually cut off immigration in the mid 1920’s. The country didn’t need the additional folks, technology and boll weevil infestations in the American South meant there were plenty of unemployed people south of the Mason Dixon to come north for industrial jobs. And come they did.

But all of these migrations weren’t based upon the needs of the migrants- but instead on the needs of the receiving country or area

 

[dochawk]

If you separate them for no other reason than they have presented themselves at a border crossing or to any official requesting asylum (which is their right under US law), then yes it is wrong.

AFAIK, there are exactly zero reported cases of this.

My understanding is that the separations came when the parents were brought to court to be criminally charged for the illegal entry. This practice is unchanged from prior decades–and does not apply to those who actually present themselves fro asylum, but rather to those that are caught after illegal entry.

Children should not be sent to adult correctional institutions with their adult guardians waiting on adjudication.

In fact, the old order (Flores?) mandates not holding the kids in the correctional institute
. . .

US law allows you to present yourself to any US official and request asylum up to 1 year after crossing the border (whether or not you have crossed legally).

Close, but only a partial picture.

The only correct way to request asylum is upon or before entry. Entering other than at a border crossing with the purpose of seeking asylum is still a crime.

Even though the entry was a crime, applications will be accepted for up to one year after entry, and “defensive asylum” may be asserted at any time in removal proceedings.

Also, note that almost all of the asylum claims are, to use the technical term, “bogus”–that is, almost all of the asylum claims clearly and inarguably don’t meet the legal standards for granting asylum, whether by US law or "International law’.

I’m adding that international law regarding asylum seekers is that they aren’t to be criminally charged for seeking asylum.

again, the next one charged for seeking asylum will be the first. They are charged for criminal entry, yet still allowed to pursue the asylum claims (which most don’t actually have).

The real difference that criminally charging them makes (for those not eligible for asylum) is that for someone previously convicted, there are penalties and further bars to entry for subsequent illegal entry. For those eligible for asylum, the conviction will have no practical effect.

hawk, esq.

 

[Theo520]

As far as the relationship between them goes, they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they should not be separated just because the adult might be a trafficker or kidnapper or be some other dangerous criminal. It should be no different than the criteria used to take children away from parents who are citizens. There needs to be evidence that the parents (or so-called parents) are seriously unsuitable guardians of those children. Then and only then should the children be removed from their custody.

With Citizens, we know exactly who is their legal guardian. US families can readly supply documentation without DNA tests.

However, most illegals don’t cross with passports and birth records. It is right to assume they may not be related until they can prove such. Possession should not replace verification since we know many children were expressly used to help smuggle people into the country, taking advantage of our prior ‘catch and release’ loophole.

The two cases are markedly different and our protection of the child should take priority.

 

[otjm]

Children have been removed from their (citizen) parents farther back than I remember, when one or both parents have committed crimes and either the remaining parent is not able to care for the child, one is incarcerated and the other missing, or other circumstances in which the child’s welfare indicates the need to separate. And that goes back to 1974 when I began practicing law.

People coming over the border illegally are being incarcerated because a) they have committed a crime; b) if they are released, all too often they do not show up for a court hearing; c) they have no money and no one else to post a bond; and d) they most likely will be deported.

Children don’t belong in jail. The parent (when it actually is the parent who brought then in) can’t take the child with them. I seriously doubt that too many of those bringing children with them do not know, through the grape vine that children will be taken away. They have the first responsibility to not bring children; it is their criminal act which is starting this whole process.

When the Democrats were in power (as in, the last administration) people were deported, although not as aggressively as now, and children were separated from parents. No one raised a stink; no one basically said a word about the matter. This is a manufactured hysteria, as it has to do with hatred for this administration (and the President), not with the act of separating children.

And although Democratic politician when into meltdown over DNA testing, it is being done because children are being brought in by people who are not their parents, and are most likely headed for criminal enterprise(s) such as the sex trade.

Anyone can seek amnesty. The current rules concerning amnesty do not appear to include domestic violence or violence from non-government sources (such as drug cartels). Right or wrong, those are the rules. Yes, we have thusands and tens of thousands applying for amnesty; that does not mean they have a case, or even a scintilla of evidence indicating any claim to amnesty, let alone one that would come within the law.

Like it or not, there are laws; and they apply just as much to a non-citizen as they do to citizens. Citizens as well as non-citizens fail to show up for court hearings. The more more likely either category of individual is to not show for a trial, the more likely a court is going to either require a bond (and thus $$$) or require them to remain in custody for trial.

The US does not owe the world admission with absolutely no conditions, any more than any other country. Europe, being generally more liberal than the US, is past the beginning of awareness of the problems which open borders create. The conversation concerning immigration is going to be exceedingly difficult, because rather than looking at the real world implications of our problems, we now have an almost absolute impasse in any rational discussion of the matter.

 

[Ender]

As a lawyer who used to practice immigration law I’m going to stick something him here and be done with it. This is not to take a side but to clear some of the misinformation upon which many labor.

You seem to understand immigration law so perhaps you can provide more answers.

If a person (or “family”) is apprehended illegally crossing the border, and they don’t claim asylum, are they not automatically deported within a fairly short time?

If a “family” claims asylum I assume it is made clear that either the children will remain incarcerated with them or will be separated from them and released into the custody of some social service. At that point do they not still have the option of accepting deportation as a “family” unit? That is, don’t they have to agree to the treatment the child will receive?

 

[dochawk]

You seem to understand immigration law so perhaps you can provide more answers.

Keep in mind that I’n about two years out of date. Keeping up with both bankruptcy and immigration law took such a huge chunk out of my day that I had to give one up.

However, I don’t think there have been any major changes (other than the decision to criminally prosecute illegal entry in substantially all cases)

If a person (or “family”) is apprehended illegally crossing the border, and they don’t claim asylum, are they not automatically deported within a fairly short time?

If it’s been only a few days, yes, an expedited removal without immigration court–but not before they get a chance to assert an asylum claim, which will get them to the IC. (also note that immigration courts and judges are not actually courts and judges, but administrative officers of the executive branch, exercising discretion held by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, and the Attorney General).

If a “family” claims asylum I assume it is made clear that either the children will remain incarcerated with them or will be separated from them and released into the custody of some social service. At that point do they not still have the option of accepting deportation as a “family” unit? That is, don’t they have to agree to the treatment the child will receive?

If caught here illegally, as opposed to presenting the claim at an entry, the parents will now be charged criminally for the entry. There will be at least a brief separation, as the children cannot accompany parents to the criminal court (that’s not an immigration issue; they can’t go for other crimes, either).

If the parents plan to simply plead guilty and leave, I assume that it’s a one time, couple of hours trip, and that the kids won’t really have gone anywhere yet, but that’s just an educated guess (based on folks not wanting to create extra work from themselves, as well as common sense, but . . .).

If the parents present themselves at the border with the children, they probably won’t be separated at all (except possibly bring the children aside to make sure that they’re actually the “parents”’ children, and not human trafficking victims, which is happening with some of the “families”).

I’ve mentioned before, but it’s worth repeating: only a tiny percentage are even vaguely eligible for asylum. They are getting told to claim it, as it gets temporary relief. The false and doomed claim in turn creates bars to entry in the future, and restricts eligibility for legal immigration. (most of those details have dropped out of my brain, though).

hawk

 

[Socrates92]

Ummmm, no. Why would you look to Obama as a role model?

 

[Augustinian]

Ummmm, no. Why would you look to Obama as a role model?

Really not looking to Obama as a role model, just curious as to why this issue is being brought up now by our Liberal friends when they had 8 years of Obama when they had Obama’s ear and could actually realistically get things done easily.

Gives people the impression that this isn’t their real concern.

 

[philipl]

Yes, we need to make it very clear those crossing the boarder will be sent 100% within a day. You are wasting your time coming here so dont