Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Katy

Executive order signed overturning family separation

Recommended Posts

yes, maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight. 

That said, I can't help but think the whole thing was orchestrated by a certain deal maker to make us happy to settle for what he really wanted all along, detention centers for families along our border indefinitely. 

For anyone wondering if there is any other alternative, yes, there is. ATD, alternatives to detention, including things like case workers assigned to families, language help, and legal help, cost the US taxpayer a small fraction of what detention does, and is over 98 percent effective when it comes to making sure immigrants appear at their court dates. Legal, upholding our immigration laws, compassionate, and WAY cheaper. But we are supposed to be grateful we have entire families detained, at great human and fiscal cost. 

I'm relieved, sure, but feel played as well. 

https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

 

  • Like 30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Families should never have been separated, and this EO is not anything to celebrate.  I have some relief that children may be returned to their families in detention, but it’s not much.  

I have more thoughts but they are still processing in my mind. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

yes, maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight. 

That said, I can't help but think the whole thing was orchestrated by a certain deal maker to make us happy to settle for what he really wanted all along, detention centers for families along our border indefinitely. 

For anyone wondering if there is any other alternative, yes, there is. ATD, alternatives to detention, including things like case workers assigned to families, language help, and legal help, cost the US taxpayer a small fraction of what detention does, and is over 98 percent effective when it comes to making sure immigrants appear at their court dates. Legal, upholding our immigration laws, compassionate, and WAY cheaper. But we are supposed to be grateful we have entire families detained, at great human and fiscal cost. 

I'm relieved, sure, but feel played as well. 

https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

 

Yes, children are not chess pieces. Don't we universally agree it's rather abhorrent when parents in custody issues treat children in such a manner? Children, all children, are people, not pawns. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Good, but it should've been common sense not to do it in the first place.  Damage is done and probably irreparable. 

 

I heard it has been in effect since the Clinton administration. Evidently, a long standing policy that went unnoticed until now? I am just wondering why this was not addressed much sooner as in years ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I heard it has been in effect since the Clinton administration. Evidently, a long standing policy that went unnoticed until now? I am just wondering why this was not addressed much sooner as in years ago.

I believe it went into affect April 6 of this year.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I believe it went into affect April 6 of this year.   

 

The separation policy? I wonder what the woman at my gym was talking about then when she said on TV that this dates back to Clinton? Well, at least it was modified within months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The policy that children could not be held in detention beyond 20 days goes back to the Clinton administration.  Children have been separated from their parents all these years.  Yes, it went largely unnoticed.

To some extent, previous administrations chose not to enforce the law i.e. they let adults out of custody and that meant they got to keep the kids with them (some of which were and some weren't their own kids).

What changed recently was that fewer adults were allowed out of custody, kids or no kids.

What the EO does is eliminate the side effect of kids being separated from their parents in certain cases when the parents are detained as part of law enforcement.

Whether that is what most of the parents actually wanted, I don't know.  Not sure they have been asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best explanation of the truth that I've seen after a couple days of research:

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

The separation policy? I wonder what the woman at my gym was talking about then when she said on TV that this dates back to Clinton? Well, at least it was modified within months.

Liz, this gives some more info.   

Sorry.  I guess the link would help.  

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/392984-an-alternative-to-trumps-family-separation-policy

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SKL said:

The policy that children could not be held in detention beyond 20 days goes back to the Clinton administration.  Children have been separated from their parents all these years.  Yes, it went largely unnoticed.

To some extent, previous administrations chose not to enforce the law i.e. they let adults out of custody and that meant they got to keep the kids with them (some of which were and some weren't their own kids).

What changed recently was that fewer adults were allowed out of custody, kids or no kids.

What the EO does is eliminate the side effect of kids being separated from their parents in certain cases when the parents are detained as part of law enforcement.

Whether that is what most of the parents actually wanted, I don't know.  Not sure they have been asked.

 

I am now confused - not that it matters :). I posted that I heard on TV at the gym that this policy dated back to Clinton; another poster said it came into effect in April of this year??? I sure never heard anything in the media in April regarding separation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been limited times in the past when family separations occurred, usually when it was considered the best interest of the child (like in cases of abuse, or when there wasn’t clear evidence of a genetic or legal relationship between an adult and a child).  So technically, yes, family separations were allowed in the past. But that is much different from what started this spring when family separations became the norm, even for many aslyum-seeking families who had a legal right to be in the US.  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I am now confused - not that it matters :). I posted that I heard on TV at the gym that this policy dated back to Clinton; another poster said it came into effect in April of this year??? I sure never heard anything in the media in April regarding separation.

There was no separation policy that went into effect in the past 1.5 years.  What went into effect this Spring was a tightening of which adults get detained after illegal border crossings.  Those who had kids with them (and who were detained longer than a couple hours) were separated because of the long-standing policy against detaining children with their detained parents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amira said:

There have been limited times in the past when family separations occurred, usually when it was considered the best interest of the child (like in cases of abuse, or when there wasn’t clear evidence of a genetic or legal relationship between an adult and a child).  So technically, yes, family separations were allowed in the past. But that is much different from what started this spring when family separations became the norm, even for many aslyum-seeking families who had a legal right to be in the US.  

 

Okay, so some of the issue was determining if a person was actually the legal guardian of the child they brought with them? I can see that this can get messy as it's feasible that someone has an extra kid with them. 

I heard of horror stories from one woman who was legal in the US but it took a while to get the daughter and someone else had to bring the child. Documentation was a nightmare (her words).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amira said:

There have been limited times in the past when family separations occurred, usually when it was considered the best interest of the child (like in cases of abuse, or when there wasn’t clear evidence of a genetic or legal relationship between an adult and a child).  So technically, yes, family separations were allowed in the past. But that is much different from what started this spring when family separations became the norm, even for many aslyum-seeking families who had a legal right to be in the US.  

I read that the asylum seekers who were detained were caught committing illegal border crossings and *then* tried to claim asylum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ending family separation is a vital first step. But there is a lot more to this zero tolerance policy that needs to be addressed.  Indefinite detention for aslyum seekers is a very bad idea in every way.  Even if you don’t have a problem with locking people up for over a year while they’re waiting for a final decision on their asylum claim (the average wait is well over a year and there is a backlog of over 200,000 cases), it’s incredibly expensive to detain this many people.  There are more effective, cheaper, and mostly importantly, more humane ways to make sure we don’t lose track of aslyum seekers.   https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SKL said:

I read that the asylum seekers who were detained were caught committing illegal border crossings and *then* tried to claim asylum. 

And that is an entirely legitimate way to claim asylum.  Aslyum can be claimed within a year of entry, even if the entry was undocumented.  Once asylum is claimed and the case is moving forward, the asylum seeker has a legal right to be in the US until their case is decided, according to US law.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Okay, so some of the issue was determining if a person was actually the legal guardian of the child they brought with them?

Yes, that is always a concern that needs to be addressed.  The problem with the recent policy is that all children were being separated from their parents, instead of only those who were in a dangerous situation.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amira said:

Ending family separation is a vital first step. But there is a lot more to this zero tolerance policy that needs to be addressed.  Indefinite detention for aslyum seekers is a very bad idea in every way.  Even if you don’t have a problem with locking people up for over a year while they’re waiting for a final decision on their asylum claim (the average wait is well over a year and there is a backlog of over 200,000 cases), it’s incredibly expensive to detain this many people.  There are more effective, cheaper, and mostly importantly, more humane ways to make sure we don’t lose track of aslyum seekers.   https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

Right, I think it makes more sense to receive and consider the asylum requests while they are still outside the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amira said:

And that is an entirely legitimate way to claim asylum.  Aslyum can be claimed within a year of entry, even if the entry was undocumented.  Once asylum is claimed and the case is moving forward, the asylum seeker has a legal right to be in the US until their case is decided, according to US law.

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

Right, I think it makes more sense to receive and consider the asylum requests while they are still outside the US.

People seeking asylum fear for their lives in their home countries. Staying home and waiting for paperwork to be processed is not an option for them

Also, Border Patrol agents have been turning away people who were approaching the checkpoint when they found out the people were planning to ask for asylum. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SKL said:

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

There are very good reasons to allow undocumented people to claim asylum.  Ending that option would mean that the US would deport even more people back to countries where they are in danger.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if we're talking about changing laws (and we certainly are), then how asylum claims are received and addressed should also be on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SKL said:

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

So how do you propose asylum seekers seek asylum when they are not let into the border crossing ? 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, regentrude said:

People seeking asylum fear for their lives in their home countries. Staying home and waiting for paperwork to be processed is not an option for them

Also, Border Patrol agents have been turning away people who were approaching the checkpoint when they found out the people were planning to ask for asylum. 

1) Yeah but these people have traveled through Mexico, so they have not just come from their home countries.

2) I heard that too. They said they were booked up and people needed to wait.  This is not unprecedented either.  This is another good reason to consider changing the laws about how, where, and when people can seek asylum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SKL said:

1) Yeah but these people have traveled through Mexico, so they have not just come from their home countries.

Yes, because they have to be at a port of entry or IN the US to be able to apply for asylum. They cannot apply for asylum from their home countries.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what are people supposed to do if they need asylum but the quota has already been met for that month or that year, or the US has detained so many people unnecessarily that no more asylees are allowed in?  Just go home?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, regentrude said:

Yes, because they have to be at a port of entry or IN the US to be able to apply for asylum. They cannot apply for asylum from their home countries.

Like I said ... good reasons to consider a revision of the asylum laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Mexico not a safe place for people fleeing a Central American country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the NYT is reporting is that people who were asked to wait did not have valid entry documents, they were essentially given their own line to wait in and called forward as the processing of those before them was completed.  Meanwhile those with valid entry documents were not delayed.  What they aren't saying is where the relief agencies are...it sounded like the arrangements to handle the food etc for the large surge was on the south side of the border. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

Like I said ... good reasons to consider a revision of the asylum laws.

It would be utterly unworkable to allow aslyum claims outside the US.  In some countries, most of the population qualifies for asylum.  Getting to the US is a significant bar for the vast majority of asylum seekers.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

Is Mexico not a safe place for people fleeing a Central American country?

 

I imagine that would depend entirely on who or what they're fleeing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

Is Mexico not a safe place for people fleeing a Central American country?

Not always, and many asylum seekers are from Mexico.  Aslyum seekers have the right to choose to apply in the US anyway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Amira said:

And what are people supposed to do if they need asylum but the quota has already been met for that month or that year, or the US has detained so many people unnecessarily that no more asylees are allowed in?  Just go home?

 

The international agreement is that they apply in the first country they come to.  Mexico, Costa Rica,...there are other choices.

There are shelters set up and funded for people transiting thru Mexico.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

The international agreement is that they apply in the first country they come to.  Mexico, Costa Rica,...there are other choices.

Refugees are supposed to be registered in the first country they arrive in and then have major restrictions on their movement.  Asylum seekers have more flexibility since they’re not formally registered.  The fact that the US has kept the UN from designating most Central Americans as refugees means they are much freer to travel to the US to claim asylum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

The separation policy? I wonder what the woman at my gym was talking about then when she said on TV that this dates back to Clinton? Well, at least it was modified within months.

That is a standard lie being told over and over until people believe it. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

That is a very interesting article, but I’m not sure what it has to do with this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I am now confused - not that it matters :). I posted that I heard on TV at the gym that this policy dated back to Clinton; another poster said it came into effect in April of this year??? I sure never heard anything in the media in April regarding separation.

that's when it became a misdemeanor to cross the border, instead of a  civil matter. But it wasn't actually enforced in criminal court because it was a total waste of resources that were better used to go after "real" criminals crossing the border. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amira said:

That is a very interesting article, but I’m not sure what it has to do with this topic.

 

In an earlier post, you had asked 'what are people to do'..this article tells you what people actually are doing.  The US is not the only place that one can flee to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SKL said:

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

The deterrent was being deported via immigration proceedings. Now, they are first going through criminal court, then immigration proceedings, which has no real effect other than to cost us a whole crap ton of taxpayer money. But fine, want to charge them criminally? Use alternative detention methods as linked above by Amira. Great than 98 percent of people do show up for hearings if enrolled in those programs, the law gets enforced, and it costs us a fraction of the money that deportation does, and is more humane in every way. But....the powers that be would rather channel money to private prisons than to pay for social workers. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HeighHo said:

 

In an earlier post, you had asked 'what are people to do'..this article tells you what people actually are doing.  The US is not the only place that one can flee too.

Thank you for clarifying that.  Telling a Guatemalan mother trying to claim aslyum in the US with her two children that she’s too late and can ask for help in Canada or Germany if she can get there doesn’t seem like a feasible option to me.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, regentrude said:

People seeking asylum fear for their lives in their home countries. Staying home and waiting for paperwork to be processed is not an option for them

Also, Border Patrol agents have been turning away people who were approaching the checkpoint when they found out the people were planning to ask for asylum. 

Yes, this is being reported by churches on the border. They now have parishoners acting as volunteers who cross to the checkpoint with the asylum seekers, and that seems to help make sure they actually make it through. Otherwise they were being turned away which, from my understanding, is illegal. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Amira said:

Refugees are supposed to be registered in the first country they arrive in and then have major restrictions on their movement.  Asylum seekers have more flexibility since they’re not formally registered.  The fact that the US has kept the UN from designating most Central Americans as refugees means they are much freer to travel to the US to claim asylum.

 

Ah, that's right, the 'first country' thing is not an international rule, its a European rule that only affects certain countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SKL said:

1) Yeah but these people have traveled through Mexico, so they have not just come from their home countries.

2) I heard that too. They said they were booked up and people needed to wait.  This is not unprecedented either.  This is another good reason to consider changing the laws about how, where, and when people can seek asylum.

Currently, the majority are FROM mexico. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amira said:

Thank you for clarifying that.  Telling a Guatemalan mother trying to claim aslyum in the US with her two children that she’s too late and can ask for help in Canada or Germany if she can get there doesn’t seem like a feasible option to me.

 

Me neither, but going south is a feasible option. I'm also wondering if relocating within the coo is feasible...perhaps its like moving from South Side of Chicago to a rural town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...