What kind of simple criminal check should be done at the border? Who should be excluded? How about if they have no identity with them? How about if they go around the the gate, and just cross where there isn’t a wall?
Are you calling for selective enforcement of the law then, where it is left to the local authorities to decide to whom the law will be applied? You say it is unnecessary to hold illegals until their asylum claims have been settled, but of those issued desk tickets to appear at a later time only about 10% show up. At those rates what appears unnecessary is having the law at all.
That’s an interesting concept, and very likely neatly explains the difference between a nation of laws and a nation of men.
Well, I guess that would explain why I raised the point, wouldn’t it? And I’ll ask it of you as well: should any illegal who comes across with a child be given a desk ticket and released into the country?
Potentially, yes. But in this case I think the guidance for that discretion is more properly done at the national level, since this is a national issue, in which case Trump takes responsibility for the discretion choices he makes.LeafByNiggle:
Are you calling for selective enforcement of the law then, where it is left to the local authorities to decide to whom the law will be applied?
Single males do tend to skip out, especially if there court dates are far in the future. But families, especially families with representation, tend to show up at better than 96% rate I hear.
Nevertheless, discretion is designed by law into many levels of our justice system. So it is both a nation of laws and a nation of men.
I would not say that should be done with every applicant. But certainly with as many as appear to be what they say they are - desperate families fleeing for their lives.
You keep saying that an executive who has sworn to uphold the nation’s laws is justified in deciding for himself whether or not he will do that. This doesn’t justify just “discretion”, but whim. We would be ruled not by laws but merely the will of our emperor.
You appear to have been badly misled. From a 2015 report from the DHS:
Discretion is involved in determining if the laws have been broken, and how penalties should be applied, but there are no options to simply decide the law is to be selectively applied.
What criteria determines that illegal immigrants “appear” to be desperate? And who makes that judgment? Does the federal law enforcement agent who captures the illegals also become their judge?
Someone who has illegally entered the US doesn’t become a “legal asylee” until a court has ruled on the matter. At that point there is no concern about the punishment of a legal asylee. As to whether those who overstay their visas should be more actively tracked down, that question is irrelevant to the question of how those sneaking across our borders should be treated.
The USCCB has no teaching authority, and if their pronouncements are generally dismissed it is surely because they have for the large part focused on political issues rather than moral ones.
I’m really looking forward to the day a judgment like this reaches SCOTUS and the justices rule on the legality of federal judges issuing universal rulings.
Can you provide evidence that the asylum-seekers failed to enter at a legal port? The ACLU is currently suing for legal asylees being detained.
This is not exactly true. The USCCB can’t be dismissed sleight-of-hand any time you don’t like what they’re saying.
And - big newsflash here - separating desperate, oppressed families is a moral issue.
These are families who only say they are desperate and oppressed. That hasn’t been adjudicated yet.
OK, OK, I’ll bite. They’re actually aristocratic families who abdicated the Throne, sold their haciendas, and decided to cross deserts barefoot to the U.S. so that their children wouldn’t grow up with entitlement complexes.
I definitely agree that we need systemic improvements - an overhaul, even.
Frankly, Scarlett, until a court has ruled on the validity of their claim to asylum I’m not sure what difference this makes.
As opposed to this generic comment about the authority of bishops there is this explicit comment on the authority of episcopal conferences:
Is it intrinsically evil to separate children from their parents in all cases? If not then what we are dealing with is a prudential judgment regarding whether in this situation such a step is necessary. That is not a moral question.
Why would you assume discretion would be by whim instead of serious consideration of the details of the case?LeafByNiggle:
You keep saying that an executive who has sworn to uphold the nation’s laws is justified in deciding for himself whether or not he will do that. This doesn’t justify just “discretion”, but whim. We would be ruled not by laws but merely the will of our emperor.
Discretion is also involved in deciding whether to prosecute. This reference should help.
I don’t think that at all. I think some of them are being smuggled in to the United States to work in prostitution, or as associates of MS13 or other street gangs.