More children torn from arms of asylum seeking parents

[Annie]

hmmm, one could also say that the real divide is between those who want our border to be secure and those who want to allow people to come in with no vetting to the detriment of the poor legally residing in the US.

Comments such as these–strawmen, emotional, inflammatory-- are substitutes for real arguments.

 

[dvdjs]

one could also say that the real divide is between those who want our border to be secure and those who want to allow people to come in with no vetting to the detriment of the poor legally residing in the US.

Comments such as these–strawmen, emotional, inflammatory-- are substitutes for real arguments.

You could, but it woud not be true. I have seen that many like to say that those who oppose Trump’s “horrible” mess just want Open Borders. It is easy to say, but it is far from reality.

I think that mine captures the situation better. There is a deliberate effort to reduce the number of immigrants, to particularly reduce immigrants form certain countries, to go slow on asylum cases and to treat harshly those who cross illegally, in order to deter from coming. This perspective is consistent with statements from the administration and its champions here.

 

[Luke6_37]

Apparently you do not understand the difference between intrinsic evil and grave evil.

There is a difference between a couple’s use of women’s cycles to avoid pregnancy and the use of contraception to avoid pregnancy. The CCC calls the latter intrinsically evil in paragraph 2370. Please don’t equivocate; it is a cheap way to “win.”

The CCC does call contraception intrinsically evil, but that doesn’t change my point, which is this:

But to say that an act is intrinsically evil does not by itself say anything about the comparative gravity of the act. Some acts that are not intrinsically evil (driving while intoxicated) can on occasion be worse both objectively and subjectively than acts that are intrinsically evil (telling a jocose lie). Some homicides that are not intrinsically evil are worse than intrinsically evil homicides. Furthermore, the fact that an act is intrinsically evil does not by itself tell third parties anything at all about their duty to prevent that act from occurring.

Intrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility: Is the concept of intrinsic evil helpful to the Catholic voter?

What does 'intrinsic evil' actually mean?

www.americamagazine.org

I disagree with the policy of separating children from their parents, but our law requires that this be done when parents are taken into custody.

Considering that many believe that those who enter illegally and establish themselves, esp if there are children involved, should be granted some form of amnesty, and how many times this has occurred, I can understand the adminstration’s decision to prevent them from establishing themselves here while aawaiting the adjudication of their status.

Finally, surely it is wrong to think certain people are incapable of making their own decisions or even of deciding to do something wrong? If they have a reasonable case for asylum, why do they not enter legally?

It sounds like you are unaware of the fact that the asylum seekers who are being arrested, separated from their children and held indefinitely, were in fact entering the United States legally. They were following the legal process for seeking asylum. It was the Trump administration that broke the law.

Government policy stipulates that asylum seekers be granted humanitarian parole as they await their immigration proceedings, provided they meet a series of stringent requirements. Instead, the Trump administration has categorically jailed them indefinitely, in violation of the Constitution, U.S. immigration laws, and the Department of Homeland Security’s own written policy.

Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Arbitrary Detention of Asylum Seekers | American Civil Liberties Union

WASHINGTON — A federal court has blocked the arbitrary detention of asylum seekers fleeing persecution, torture, or death in their countries of...

www.aclu.org

So I am glad you disagree with the policy, which is gravely evil and totally unnecessary.

 

[dvdjs]

So I am glad you disagree with the policy, which is gravely evil and totally unnecessary.

Thanks for the ACLU link. Wow!.

 

[Annie]

The one case described is that of a man who purports to have properly presented himself to immigration officials. His being from Haiti adds credence to this claim, since he may have flown to the US.

However, this article ( ICE Is Illegally Imprisoning Asylum Seekers | American Civil Liberties Union ) says he has been imprisoned “one year, four months and counting.” The article is dated March 15, 2018. That means he has been imprisoned since the Obama administration.

I don’t know if he would have been immediately imprisoned upon arrival, and then his hearing occurring after the Trump administration coming in, he fell under a different policy than Obama’s, bit I thought this odd.

This seems to be a completely different case than those regarding children taken from their parents.

In the case of Ansly Damus, Damus seems to have followed the law, which is, afaict, that those claiming asylum present themselves to immigration officials upon arrival requesting asylum. These people are not supposed to be held throughout the adjudication process once it is established that they have a credible reason for requesting asylum.

The situation of the separated families seems to be that the parents did not claim asylum until after they were caught entering illegally.

 

[Luke6_37]

The situation of the separated families seems to be that the parents did not claim asylum until after they were caught entering illegally.

It’s that, but also what is happening at legitimate points of entry as this article describes…

The Trump administration says it's a 'myth' that families that ask for asylum at ports of entry are separated. It happens frequently, records show

A woman named Mirian and her 18-month-old son reached Brownsville, Texas, early this year after fleeing Honduras, where the military had teargassed their home.

www.latimes.com

It’s a huge mess, because there is so little transparency and you can’t believe anything coming out of the Trump administration.

The worse part is how little planning was done for how to reunite the families. There does not seem to be a plan and the cost of this unncessary border policy will be enormous. It’s really a massive man made disaster.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is a deliberate effort to reduce the number of immigrants, to particularly reduce immigrants form certain countries, to go slow on asylum cases and to treat harshly those who cross illegally, in order to deter from coming. This perspective is consistent with statements from the administration and its champions here.

Not at all. I doubt there is one conservative in 100,000 who really opposes immigration or asylum. There would, however, be plenty who would want to discourage illegal immigration.

You don’t see conservatives opposing legal immigration per se. What you do see is an argument over whether those who are allowed in should be required to have skills. You do see that.

You don’t see conservatives opposing asylum per se. You do see conservatives complaining about those who falsely claim asylum only when caught entering illegally. That’s most of them, unfortunately.

Probably most conservatives are not as radical as I am. I would like to see the U.S. population doubled as soon as possible. In my view, we have a vast, resource-full, dynamic and largely empty country that needs a lot more people than it has.

But I am probably as much against illegal immigration as anyone here.

The flood of illegals was a George W. Bush problem that just got worse. I truly believe Bush perceived (rightly) that this country needed more people. But as between those who would have come from overseas and those who could come on Shanks’ Mare, he greatly preferred the latter. And his reasons were understandable. Latinos (mostly Mexicans then) were Christian, westerners, and shared a lot of our culture already. And so, he looked the other way. Obama continued the practice and, indeed, the lack of reasonable remedies throughout the Bush administration made it difficult for anyone to control the borders. When, as with Obama, he faced party opposition to control, he often just let it go.

But the risk I see in uncontrolled illegal immigration is that we might not be far from a time when the American public rejects all immigration.

 

[MonteRCMS]

and their coyote.

“and their coyote”

 

[Ridgerunner]

It sounds like you are unaware of the fact that the asylum seekers who are being arrested, separated from their children and held indefinitely, were in fact entering the United States legally. They were following the legal process for seeking asylum. It was the Trump administration that broke the law.

No. You’re not presenting it correctly. Simply going to a port of entry is not enough.

From the article you cited, people who come through an authorized port of entry are still detained and separated:

“1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.”

As between that statement by DHS and some anecdotal stories by open borders advocates, I’ll believe DHS.

 

[Luke6_37]

From the article you cited, people who come through an authorized port of entry are still detained and separated:

“1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.”

As between that statement by DHS and some anecdotal stories by open borders advocates, I’ll believe DHS.

“Open border advocates” is Trump propaganda rhetoric. I just watched a Trump supporter on Fox News use the exact phrase. Thanks for being so transparent.

The Bishops condemned Trump’s policy and practices at the border. I believe them over Trump’s DHS. So how about we discuss why you don’t stand with the Catholic Bishops, since I am not at all interested in giving anyone a platform for anything else.

If not, feel free to attempt to engage other people on this forum. I won’t be offended if you ignore me.

 

[dvdjs]

I doubt there is one conservative in 100,000 who really opposes immigration or asylum.

I am not sure what you mean by “opposes immigration or asylum”
I had asked about reducing the number of immigrants and deterring asylum seekers.
There is another thread in which a poster expressed a desire to end most immigration.

The flood of illegals was a George W. Bush problem that just got worse

I am note sure that the data support this. These data suggest otherwise.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh, I admit being a Trump supporter, at least for now, and anybody who has paid attention knows it. No big revelation there.

Stand with the bishops how? What is their solution? They do not approve of separating children from their parents. I don’t either. But I have yet to see a single bishop propose a solution of any kind, let alone one that will pass muster with the courts.

Nor, indeed, have I seen any liberal come up with a solution other than open borders, which is what 'catch and release" really is.

Amusing how liberals fuss so when some conservative mentions Hillary Clinton. Past history you say, and it would be good if she was. But you liberals are still espousing her open borders policy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“opposes immigration of asylum”

You misread what I wrote. I said “immigration OR asylum” not immigration OF asylum" which you quoted me as saying. No wonder you didn’t understand it. No big deal though. it happens.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As to the charts, “border apprehensions” can be questioned since classification is an issue with that. The Obama administration misclassified a lot of border apprehensions. Possibly the Trump admin does too. Kind of depends on what one means by at the “border”.

If, indeed, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is less than its peak number, that’s a good thing in my book if it’s accurate. But it’s not down by very much and one does read much higher estimates.

 

[dvdjs]

You misread what I wrote. I said “immigration OR asylum” not immigration OF asylum" which you quoted me as saying. No wonder you didn’t understand it. No big deal though. it happens.

Thanks for pointing out my typo so that I could edit it.

I did in fact understand that you wrote “… opposes immigration or asylum”. The problem is that could mean anything from legislating for more, a constant number, or all but one immigrant. That is why I returned to the proposition that I had made, rather than following your pivot.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now I’m the one who’s baffled.

What I meant was what I said. I don’t think there would be 1 out of 100,000 conservatives who opposes immigration. Nor do I believe there would be more than that who oppose asylum. If you are questioning how many immigrants or asylum seekers I mean, I’ll say I have no particular number in mind. Nor do I think conservatives, (or anybody else) generally, do.

 

[Luke6_37]

Stand with the bishops how? What is their solution?

The Bishops want us to find ways to welcome the stranger not keep them out.

Below is a list of policy solutions proposed by the Bishops. Take your pick to discuss how as Catholics, we can make them a reality.

USCCB Position

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:

Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population “out of the shadows,” as members of their communities.

Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

Family‐based Immigration Reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.

Restoration of Due Process Rights: Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.

Addressing Root Causes: Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as under‐development and poverty in sending countries, and seek long‐term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.

Enforcement: The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...gration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm

 

[dvdjs]

What I meant was what I said. I don’t think there would be 1 out of 100,000 conservatives who opposes immigration. Nor do I believe there would be more than that who oppose asylum. If you are questioning how many immigrants or asylum seekers I mean, I’ll say I have no particular number in mind. Nor do I think conservatives, (or anybody else) generally, do.

Why are you baffled?
I made a proposition. You pivoted in your response in a manner that is very unclear:

With no number in mind, is cutting the annual immigration in half supporting or opposing immigration?
With no number in mind, is allowing a three-year backlogging asylum applications, and turning people away at ports of entry because of work overload as a means to deter seekers - while still processing some, supporting or opposing asylum?

Bakc o my quesrion

 

[Ridgerunner]

Principles, yes. Practical solutions; not a single one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your “proposition” was simply an accusation, which I believe to be false and which just about anyone who is not a liberal believes to be false. Your accusation was that of bias against immigrants generally and of those from particular countries more specifically. You added your belief that such things are “consistent” with statements of this administration.

My response was that I do not believe the accusations to be meritorious. You don’t agree. Fine. I knew you wouldn’t. But I get to say things on here just as you do.