More children torn from arms of asylum seeking parents

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Take this, for example. Most Americans do not want “chain migration”. What’s the evidence that a lack of bringing, e.g., one’s cousin to this country leads to “family breakdown”? And what do they mean by “increasing the number of family visas available and reducing family reunification waiting times.”

What dos that mean in practical terms?

 

[dvdjs]

My response was that I do not believe the accusations to be meritorious.

Oh, I did misunderstand our post.
As a statement of your belief, however elliptical, it makes perfect sense.
But as a statement that provides any evidence against my assertion, it fails.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But as a statement that provides any evidence against my assertion, it fails.

Of course not. As a liberal, you believe

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

It would be surprising if you did not.

 

[dvdjs]

Most Americans do not want “chain migration”. What’s the evidence that a lack of bringing, e.g., one’s cousin to this country leads to “family breakdown”?

I am not sure that most Americans even understand “chain immigration”. When one talk of bring a cousin, that reflects either a lack of understanding or disinformation. The “chain” is preponderantly spouses, minor children, and parents. There are family visa for others, but with quotas that retard the process almost to the point of stopping for countries with large immigrant communities in the US : >= 20 years for people from Mexico and the Philippines. What Trump has discussed woudl have the main effect of excluding parents. I. think that this is an awful idea.

 

[dvdjs]

As a liberal, you believe

My opinions are predicated on facts and critical thinking, however shocking that may seemto those whose epistemology of the party-line.

 

[F_Marturana]

I am not sure that most Americans even understand “chain immigration”. When one talk of bring a cousin, that reflects either a lack of understanding or disinformation

I agree. Many don’t understand how immigration works. Cousins are not subject for sponsorship. My mother wasn’t able to sponsor her cousin. My grandmother wasn’t able to sponsor the same cousin, her nephew.

My husband has family that sibling sponsorship took over 15 years.

Family sponsorship has become more difficult now than 50 years ago. My mother sponsored my father as her fiancé, then they married. It only took a few months. The same scenario isn’t possible today. Only citizens may sponsor family. My mom was a permanent legal resident.

It’s never been referred to as “chain migration”. It’s the Family reunification act.

I would prefer people be honest. The Stephen Miller and the Ann Coulter immigration modes are what Trump aims for.

People from Norway are welcome ( who don’t necessarily want to come). Muslim people are too risky, Latino’s as well.

People from, “$***hole countries, not welcome either.

In real life, the lives of two of my children were saved by doctors who were educated in Nigeria. My parish has priests from Uganda. The nurses who care for my Alzheimer’s stricken mother are Haitian. The men who repaired my home after it being flooded were from Ecuador. The man who showed up in tears at my doorstep the day after my father’s funeral was an Albanian Muslim who proclaimed my father to be his brother, and now my mother would be his sister.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My opinions are predicated on facts and critical thinking, however shocking that may seemto those whose epistemology of the party-line.

So you say and believe. But in the post in question, there was not a fact in it. it was all opinion; all conclusion. Once again, here it is:

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.

No facts. Just ideologically-based conclusions.

 

[Luke6_37]

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

I think that is an excuse to avoid endorsing Catholic principles, because they conflict with the anti-immigrant Nativist principles of the Trump administration, which you admit you support.

Principles are what define acceptable solutions. For example, the Nativist principles of the Trump administration are what lead to the horrific solution of zero-tolerance and child separation as a means of deterring people who are fleeing violence & poverty in their homeland from seeking asylum in the United States.

Other principles and practices of the Trump administration made this solution acceptable to his supporters, such as lying, fear mongering and scapegoating a vulnerable population by deliberately portraying them as criminals or threats to American workers by taking their jobs or burdening the social welfare system (as if there was something wrong about being an economic migrant who wants to work hard and earn money).

The deliberate demonization of a vulnerable population is one of the greatest evils that exists, because it is the way tyrants get away with crimes against humanity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Cousins are not subject for sponsorship

It is possible to sponsor people to whom one is not related at all. I sponsored a family from El Salvador, and was not related to any of them.

There are no limitations on family members of U.S. citizens. Perhaps that’s as it should be, but it is still without limit. Immediate family member limitations of non-citizens is about a half million per year. Those are close family members. For family members who are not immediate family members, the limit is about a quarter million per year.

Chain migration, like lottery immigration, is unrelated to one’s ability to contribute to this country’s economy. If a person wants immigration for its own sake, then the only thing that matters is numbers.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here’s what you said I said. It is totally false.

the Nativist principles of the Trump administration are what lead to the horrific solution of zero-tolerance and child separation

the Nativist principles of the Trump administration are what lead to the horrific solution of zero-tolerance and child separation

Again false. The Ninth Circuit prohibited detaining adults and children together, and you know it. That’s not a Trump principle “nativist” or otherwise.

And worst of all (so far) you said:

“Other principles and practices of the Trump administration made this solution acceptable to his supporters, such as lying, fear mongering and scapegoating…”

The deliberate demonization of a vulnerable population is one of the greatest evils that exists, because it is the way tyrants get away with crimes against humanity."

And so, you deliberately demonize a segment of our own population simply because not everyone in this country supports open borders, as you do.

 

[dvdjs]

There are no limitations on family members of U.S. citizens

This is untrue.

It is possible to sponsor people to whom one is not related at all

We were talking aobut the Family Reunification Act.

 

[dvdjs]

No facts. Just ideologically-based conclusions.

I did not lay out the specific facts in that statement. You jump to the conclusion that there are no supporting facts and that my statement is based on ideology. Since you are a subscriber to ideology based “thinking”, you may feel comfortable with your statement, but your conclusion is not fact based in the least.

 

[Luke6_37]

And so, you deliberately demonize a segment of our own population simply because not everyone in this country supports open borders, as you do.

No. I believe Trump supporters have been conned, lied to, and manipulated by a narcissistic & ruthless wanna-be autocrat.

The same thing happened to my Grandfather after WWI, when Mussolini rose to power. He learned a hard lesson from that. Mussolini wasn’t all bad you know, he got the trains to run on time and insisted that every Italian child, boy or girl, had at least a 3rd grade education. My aunt’s would never have gone to school at all if it weren’t for him.

But overall he was bad and we can’t forget that. Nativism makes an enemy out of “the other”, which is antithetical to the Gospel.

And “open borders” is just another lying piece of Nativist poison.

 

[dvdjs]

The Ninth Circuit prohibited detaining adults and children together, and you know it

Again you need to probe this idea more carefuly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No. I believe Trump supporters have been conned, lied to, and manipulated by a narcissistic & ruthless wanna-be autocrat.

Which is, again, a judgment of tens of millions of people, and an extremely insulting one.

If open borders is just a lying piece of Nativist poison, you can blame your previous presidential candidate for it. She said she favored it for the Americas. Of course, she said that in a speech to bankers and possibly didn’t want all the conned and manipulated people to know about it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again you need to probe this idea more carefuly.

Obviously the Obama administration didn’t think that would be of any value. What do you think they missed?

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

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.

Take this, for example. Most Americans do not want “chain migration”. What’s the evidence that a lack of bringing, e.g., one’s cousin to this country leads to “family breakdown”? And what do they mean by “increasing the number of family visas available and reducing family reunification waiting times.”

What dos that mean in practical terms?

First of all, people should know that those are not my words, but a quote from the USCCB.

Second, “chain migration” is an ugly made up Nativist term used to refer to the legal process of a family member, who has established himself in the United States, sponsoring other family members to join him in this country.

Third, we are not discussing what “most Americans” want. Most Americans want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. Do you think that is legitimate? Are you prepared to give it to them?

Fourth, what does it matter to you if the family member is a cousin? The sponsor is still liable for him. My mother sponsored her brother, which was a good thing, because when my father died, he was the only family she had in this country and he really helped her to stay afloat economically by managing her rental property and doing maintenance on them free of charge.

It’s no skin off your back and good for the country to have extended family units working together to live the American dream. That’s the principle of subsidiarity you’re so fond of in action. You love the concept when it comes to taxation, why not here?

And finally, are you seriously confused about what, “increasing the number of family visas available and reducing family reunification waiting times” means in practical terms?

It means just what it says - that’s pretty concrete to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why is “chain migration” nativist? And what does “nativist” mean anyway? I have said for years that I favor increased immigration. Why do you accuse me and others of something we don’t hold at all? Just bias of a sort different from the one you wrongly accuse others of?

And I don’t think chain migration is fair in a lot of ways. it gives an advantage to some over others simply by reason of their being related. And in that, it isn’t equitable at all. There are no numerical limits on the number of relatives U.S. citizens can get into the country. But there are limits on other categories.

And laws enshrining discrimination have nothing whatever to do with subsidiarity. I don’t speak of subsidiarity in terms of taxation. You’re either thinking of someone else or giving rein to a bias. But given your readiness to speak of others as “nativist” when you know nothing about them, I doubt that’s unusual.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

No. I believe Trump supporters have been conned, lied to, and manipulated by a narcissistic & ruthless wanna-be autocrat.

Which is, again, a judgment of tens of millions of people, and an extremely insulting one.

If open borders is just a lying piece of Nativist poison, you can blame your previous presidential candidate for it. She said she favored it for the Americas. Of course, she said that in a speech to bankers and possibly didn’t want all the conned and manipulated people to know about it.

I am basically saying that I view most Trump supporters as gullible and easily manipulated, not because of a character flaw, but because those in the working class especially were dissapointed by Obama and looking for a new hope.

Of course, there are ruthless, power grabbing folks among them as well, but not everyone is Mitch McConnell.

My previous presidential candidate was John Kasich - the last moral choice standing in the GOP primaries. After he was rejected and after watching the horror that was the GOP convention, I became an independent, because that is the only thing a Catholic can be in good conscience.

 

[F_Marturana]

Why is “chain migration” nativist?

Because it’s a made up term for a made up crisis. Trump refers to it as chain migration.

It’s called the Family reunification act.

He also doesn’t describe the Visa Lottery properly. He frequently claims other countries put their people in a lottery , and the US has no choice but to accept these people.

It never worked that way. The visa lottery is run completely by the US and gives under represented countries a number of visas. The US does all the selection of possible visa recipients. The US decides which countries are able to participate.

But he misrepresented it many times. He either doesn’t know or care how it works. Or the talking point sounds good to him.