Knights Helping Refugees at the Border

[PJH_74]

Those that apply at the border, yes. Significant numbers, though, are sneaking across and only apply if caught (called “Defensive asylum claim” in immigration court). I couldn’t tell you what the ratio is in the current groups.

That’s the problem, no one could state a ratio. BUT, tell me no one you know has ever claimed a different motive or reality to make things better for themselves. Our laws are based on innocent until proven guilty, due process. This applies to everyone in the asylum process. As far as I can see, there is no qualification on how a refugee enters per the most recent law defining the Asylum process:

Asylum Law

 

[EricF]

If the commands of Jesus oppose a political position, then something needs re-evaluated.

 

[BlueMaxx]

If we substitute the word “refugee” "or “illegal immigrant” for “poor” and relate that to what our Catechism, Church and Christ teaches one can only draw the conclusion that the Knights are helping to fulfill the great commision.

 

[dochawk]

. Our laws are based on innocent until proven guilty, due process. This applies to everyone in the asylum process.

No.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding oof the law.

That is as strictly criminal concept, with no application in civil or administrative law.

In asylum proceedings, as with most petitions, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, not the government. The petitioner must show the threat of governmental harm/persecution. (There are extremely narrow exceptions when the de juris government has so lost control that it is no longer the de facto government. )

For an affirmative claim of asylum, the claim must be made within one year of entry. The legality of the entry is not a factor. HOWEVER, an intent to claim asylum in no way changes the crime of illegal entry, or the resulting illegal states and accumulations of days of unlawful presence (yes, the number of days count, falling into ranges). Defensive asylum can be claimed at a later date when in removal proceedings, but is rarely successful. There are also many “notaries” giving wretched advice on making false asylum claims, and charging ridiculous amounts for this (bad faith claims have sanctions, including bars to reentry).

 

[vz71]

If we substitute the word “refugee” "or “illegal immigrant” for “poor” and relate that to what our Catechism, Church and Christ teaches one can only draw the conclusion that the Knights are helping to fulfill the great commision.

If we called a tail a leg, would a dog have 5 legs?

Calling something so does not necessarily make it so.

 

[Usagi]

Not if they are asylum seekers … and we only get to say they are or aren’t legitimate asylum seekers after we’ve given them a hearing.

Also, remember that the crime in question is a misdemeanor. Give them a ticket or a fine. Locking them up (and locking up their innocent kids separately) is excessive and wouldn’t be tolerated if they were American, or even just white.

 

[vz71]

Also, remember that the crime in question is a misdemeanor. Give them a ticket or a fine.

And then deport them.

 

[Usagi]

And then deport them

Sure, sure, if we must. But maybe not without their kids, or if we only catch up with them after they’ve served in our military or held a productive job for 20 years with no other crimes?

 

[vz71]

Sure, sure, if we must. But maybe not without their kids,

Well now we get into some issues.
What if the kid is born in America and is therefore a legal citizen?
We cannot deport legal citizens.
So we end up with no choice but to separate the kids from the parents.
I am uncertain all of the legalities here, but it would seem an incentive to use children as leverage is created.

I am all for keeping kids with their parents.
But I also do not want to see children used in such a way. Perhaps if a parent would use their child in that way, they should lose custody. Clearly they do not have what is best for the children in mind.

 

[dochawk]

Not if they are asylum seekers …

Where are you getting this?

It is just as illegal to cross the border away from a crossing point when one intends to seek asylum as not. It just isn’t a bar to seeking asylum, but is indeed a crime.

The lawful way to seek asylum is to present oneself at a border crossing and make the request.

ocking them up (and locking up their innocent kids separately) is excessive and wouldn’t be tolerated if they were American, or even just white.

Actually, we do detain people for misdemeanors when we have no reason to think they will show up . . .

 

[Theo520]

Also, remember that the crime in question is a misdemeanor. Give them a ticket or a fine. Locking them up (and locking up their innocent kids separately) is excessive and wouldn’t be tolerated if they were American, or even just white.

We separate parent from child as a matter of course in our legal system.
It’s dishonest of you to imply this is racially motivated.

Also, human trafficking is a very real concern and many of these border crossers enter illegally without documentation.

Stop ignoring the truth of the situation, people are only recently crossing with children in numbers to take advantage of the catch and release loophole. These ‘parents’ are acting in self interest rather than the interests of the children they are dragging along.

 

[Padres1969]

It doesn’t. Hell basic human decency doesn’t work that way either. But then there’s nothing decent about the current handling of the situation on the border.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

There are plenty of misdemeanors for which you can be locked up for 364 days.

 

[Usagi]

When the legal system has to lock up parents, they don’t also lock up the kids, in conditions we wouldn’t tolerate in a prison.

Sure, check to see if the kid is being trafficked or has been kidnapped from parents back home. (Note that, “This isn’t literally my kid, but I was asked to bring my niece/nephew/neighbor kid along with me” is not the same thing as the kid being trafficked or kidnapped.) But if your concern is really for the kids, maybe don’t have no system or plan whatsoever for identifying which kids belong to which adults or what you are going to do with those kids in the longer term.

 

[Theo520]

When the legal system has to lock up parents, they don’t also lock up the kids, in conditions we wouldn’t tolerate in a prison.

So you’ve never been to a secure detention facility for youth.
The govt is responsible for their care and can’t have them running off into the night.
The youths detained at the border are moved to more agreeable quarters as they are processed.

 

[Usagi]

Assuming we are looking for a humane solution rather than a way to keep out as many people as possible, laws can be changed so that the parent and caregiver of a citizen child is not subject to deportation. Again, especially if this isn’t “catch them on the day of crossing” but “catch them some years later with an otherwise clean record.”

 

[Usagi]

Is that a situation where the youth have committed crimes, or their parents have? Are toddlers and school-age kids kept with teenagers, poorly cared for, and expected to appear at hearings? If that is the case for American kids, our justice system is even more screwed up than I realized.

I don’t think anyone denies that the government has the responsibility to care for children without available guardians. If the care was actually good and not deliberately substandard, there might even be praise for that aspect of the job. But an overcrowded, undersupplied prison camp that our leaders openly tout as a disincentive aimed at other parents that might seek to cross illegally is not how you discharge that responsibility.

 

[vz71]

laws can be changed so that the parent and caregiver of a citizen child is not subject to deportation.

That would create an incentive to use children as an anchor to prevent deportation.

 

[Theo520]

Is that a situation where the youth have committed crimes, or their parents have? Are toddlers and school-age kids kept with teenagers, poorly cared for, and expected to appear at hearings? If that is the case for American kids, our justice system is even more screwed up than I realized.

If the parents have been detained, CPS becomes responsible and detains the youth till a better alternative becomes available. With illegal immigrants it naturally takes longer to process the children and find a safe home for the children.

My experience is at a group home (no crimes committed) and at an alternative to juvie where the child has committed misdemeanors and is being detained. I have no sympathy for the parents who dragged their child (or rented one) into the detention mess. Virtually all these economic migrants could have found a family or neighbor to safely care for their child back home.

 

[PJH_74]

The legality of the entry is not a factor. HOWEVER, an intent to claim asylum in no way changes the crime of illegal entry,

My point exactly, the status of an asylum claim is not affected by the type of entry. But, due process is in effect when it comes to the method of entry and it remains the burden of the government to prove that it was illegal.
However, let’s not argue technicalities. It remains the narrative, preferred by many, that asylum seekers have categorically entered the US by illegal means and we need a wall and more ICE agents to stop this. This is not true since around half of those illegally resident in the US have overstayed a legal entry visa into the US. Also, it obviates the fact that a good number of asylum seekers have done so through entirely legal means.
The other narrative is that the US is the benevolent granter of asylum and asylum seekers are taking advantage of us. We have not exceeded 100,000 asylum seekers since 1995. Even at that number, as a percentage of the population, we are looking at 0.03% of the resident population of the US. This is not even close to, for example, Germany which had around 300,000 Syrian asylum seekers alone in 2015 vs a population of around 83,000,000. That is a percentage of nearing 4% of its population.
The truth is we have less than 100,000 people, statistically a good number with legitimate claims for asylum, being used as a whipping boy for the US’s failure implement a reasonable immigration policy. This is not a crisis; this is politics not afraid to implement draconian treatment on vulnerable people for political gain. When it comes to boarder security, we need to be going after the drug cartels, not relatively defensive and generally decent, vulnerable, and potentially disposable people.