Trump's immigrant policy detrimental to children!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ransri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve got no political love for the man Trump (though I have tremendous respect for the office he holds as president), but I don’t see a child abuser in the video you posted. My heart absolutely breaks for the children and parents who were and still are separated because of this immigration mess. And as much as I dislike Trump, he cannot be held to blame for all this, sorry.

If people would stop making humanitarian crises into political shouting points, we’d probably do a better job at working together to create solutions.
 
Last edited:
You should change the thread before the mods suspend you or something.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
Do you really think that “wanting to become an American citizen” is a justifiable reason to try to sneak across the border? If so then that is a No Borders policy. A country must have borders and maintain them.
Click to expand...
Is it justifiable to brand those people as criminals? Is this in line with God’s words about how we should treat the immigrant or foreigners?
 
Legal immigrants and people who are genuine refugees, yes we should help them and welcome them. I still think you should treat illegal immigrants humanely too, of course, but it is fair and just to consider illegal immigration a criminal offense. Every country has a right to protect it’s borders for the safety and well being of her citizens.
 
A country should have borders and the violators should be taken to book but should be more lenient when dealing with children,especially very little children!
 
Then maybe these parents should think before they break they law and try to enter the country illegally.

Children of parents who commit crimes are removed from their custody every day, why is no one clammoring on about how inhumane that is.
 
To specifically answer your question, under the zero-tolerance Trump policy they separated families and asked questions later. They separated families of those seeking asylum as well, which is not illegal. To re-iterate, seeking asylum for your life and the life of your children is not illegal let alone the Church’s stance on it being a “right” based on the dignity of the human person to do so.
One “right” we do NOT have is (being a child of God) to keep ourselves in the midst of immediate danger, whether it be an abusive spouse or gang members seeking to do us harm. As a parent they MUST remove their children from the threat.
 
But to seek asylum there is a right way and a wrong way. And the wrong way to to illegally cross the border. Period.
 
Rational1 said:
People who want to become American citizens, apply for refuge or to live and work here are not criminals. So No, they should not be locked up neither children nor parent. There are reasonable ways to control immigration but considering people who want to immigrate as criminals is wrong.
Click to expand...
This is all pretty complicated in reality. The Ninth Circuit has ordered that the government can detain adults, but not children. Therefore, it is presently illegal to keep them together. Trump caved in to the pressure to reunite them, but it presented several problems.

Asylum seekers who come in the ports of entry and immediately claim asylum are not detained. They are vetted and then simply released into the population. They do, however, have case workers assigned to them to ensure that they show up for their hearings. Some wear electronic bracelets. Most of these do show up for hearings.

People who come in other than at points of entry are basically “sneaking in”. Some of those, when caught, (and only when caught) claim asylum. Those people are the ones detained by ICE because it appears the return rate for those who sneak in is very small.

So now, the government has no choice but to simply let them all go. They can’t be returned to Mexico, so they have to be released into the U.S. They do not have case workers or anything else. Few of the minors who came with them are little kids. Of the thousands of them, only 102 are under the age of five. Most of the children have no accompanying adult at all. Some do, but the adult is not related. some of the adults are criminals. Some of the minors are criminals. Some of the “parents” have already left voluntarily, leaving the minors behind who they said were “their children”.

So it’s a mess. There are those (and I’m one of them) who thinks the government should have been allowed to vet all those people and decide who goes where and with whom. But the media firestorm prevented that. To my understanding, they’re all to be released into the population. The government is trying to “hurry up” the vetting process, but I don’t think it’s working very well.

Finally, it needs to be realized that this all dates back to the Obama administration. Not blaming Obama, but it has been a tough situation for years. Initially, Obama separated adults and minors just as the Trump administration did. The illegal entry went down. Then Obama started feeling some pressure about that and devised a program where adults and minors could be kept together. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the government couldn’t do that. So Obama just let them go, not knowing what else to do. That caused a “wave” of people coming from Central America to take advantage of it.

Trump tried to reinstate the “separation while vetting” policy, but we know the rest of that story.
 
Oh I see your point. After a treacherous life-threatening march though a desert to escape something even worst…they didn’t go to the right point of entry? You mean the ones that were instituted after the zero-tolerance policy was rolled out? Oh. I see your point. But I couldn’t disagree more, and neither did the majority of decent people that support immigration reform, protecting borders from “danger” and simultaneously see the innate insanity of separating children from mothers at the border. What exactly did it accomplish? Nothing will deter (although that was his ultimate goal) persons from seeking safety. Even the poor souls in the 911 towers when faced with fire in the stairwells jumped. If persons do not understand what these persons are escaping, civil discourse is useless…I have a feeling…
 
No, it means they didn’t claim asylum at the first border they stopped at.

When you’re seeking asylum, you claim it at the first border you cross. You don’t travel 2,000+ miles through another country or multiple countries to pick where you want to stop. If you wanted to travel 2,000 miles from your home, where would you end up? That’s like fleeing from Madrid, Spain, and seeking asylum in Salzburg, Austria. You totally ignore that you’ve passed through France, Switzerland, Germany on your way to Austria. Or you totally ignore that you’ve passed through France, Italy, Liechtenstein, and Germany.

So if there are 41,000 unaccompanied minors in FY 2017, and a vast majority of them are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras---- look at the map.

How many borders do they have to cross before they get to the US/Mexico border? That’s not how asylum works.
 
Mom escaping gang rape didn’t get the memo. When persons seek safety in the state of fight or flight, you’ll need to excuse the fact they may not know what to do. They may not speak English either.
 
Translation: One moves until one is safe. No one has a right to keep themselves, or children in a dangerous environment.
 
OK-- Why is their current environment dangerous?

What’s going on in Honduras, in El Salvador, in Guatemala, or even in Mexico, that they’re trying to run from?

What’s the big picture? Not the end of the picture, but tell me the big picture of what’s going on in Central America that makes it so undesirable.
 
DENNYINMI said:
Mom escaping gang rape didn’t get the memo. When persons seek safety in the state of fight or flight, you’ll need to excuse the fact they may not know what to do. They may not speak English either.
Click to expand...
Actually, they do know what to do, even people in the 3rd world, even the homeless, have cell phones. It isn’t 1993 any more, where cell phone ownership is a symbol of Middle Class American affluence.

People have received the memo from their compatriots who are already here, how to ask for asylum and what to tell the ICE officials. The problem is that about 90% or so of the asylum applications don’t have a case, but it takes months to adjudicate their cases.

In the mean time, what to do? They don’t want to house children in the penitentiary with their parents, and if they parole the applicants into the community, the vast majority don’t show up for their hearings (they know they don’t meet the criteria.).

This is the problem, and President Trump has asked Congress to clarify and reform immigration procedures. To date, however, nothing.
 
Uh, no. He (joeybaggz) was saying that children didn’t need to be locked up in the general population of adult jail, which has the potential to contain rapists and pedophiles, in addition to thieves/murderers/druggies/etc. It would be difficult to protect incarcerated children from incarcerated predators, which is the whole point of separating them into their own detention centers in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Hereiam said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
Edited to say, I forgot rapists
Click to expand...
Oh yeah…you learn your lessons from the evil one well…when ever people come into the US, we should call them “murders, rapists, and bad hombres”, and make no mention that some who come unsponsored are presenting themselves as refugees seeking political asylum…how disgusting and shameful!
Click to expand...
Apparently you have learned the lesson of telling a half truth and pretending it is the whole truth. The “evil one” didn’t say they were ALL “murders, [sic] rapists, and bad hombres,” as you imply. He said some of them were. So now you are trying to make no mention of the fact that no small number of them are murderers, rapists and bad hombres, while calling “the evil one” evil, “disgusting and shameful,” not for telling the truth but for allegedly saying what he didn’t say, i.e., for not saying what he didn’t say.

Pot meet kettle.

So the truth isn’t quite what you are making it out to be, is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top