Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

heartlikealion

Huge ICE raid in my state

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I'm glad you are participating in this thread, because I think you have a lot of misconceptions about seeking asylum. For example, you cannot claim asylum in the US at an embassy. You must be physically in the country to do so. It's a nice idea, and it could be something we look into if we every get to a point where people are serious about improving the process, but right now it isn't possible.

I think there is a lot of merit in expanding our embassies, and adding personnel. Our expats and diplomats are in a better position to process these applications due to having first hand knowledge of the culture, the conditions, the local governments, etc. They have a better chance of being less arbitrary, but also of potentially knowing if they are indeed fraudulent applications. Sort of like it would be nice to sometimes let locals make the decision of how things get done locally, then handed down from on high from people who have NO CLUE what is going on in your community. 

I think that while there will always be abuses, because where there are humans there will be abuse, potentially this system might have a chance at being much better than our current model. Also, by having applications go to our embassies, we get an idea of the scale of the crisis before they arrive which makes planning what to do and how to meet the need so much easier. 

Still, unless we reform how many we are willing to take, undocumented persons is going to continue to be a massive issue. We can't have tens of millions in crisis around the world, and have the ceiling set at 30,000 (the max the US was willing to take for 2019) unless we are going to help them in their home countries which means getting pretty darn active in stabilizing nations, getting money into the hands of the right people, and stopping our CIA game of promoting dictators for "reasons". Refugees and asylum seekers in much larger numbers than that will still come in the hopes of being one of the lucky 30,000 when their immigration hearing occurs.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

How can you judge someone, when you don't know what you'd do in the same situation? 

How is keeping your kids from dying at the hands of drug dealers or gangs entirely different from keeping your kids from dying in a war?  

You cut out the rest of my post that answered these questions. If I were that desperate, I would think long and hard about trading one set of traumatic, violent, possibly deadly circumstances for another. But no, I don't think the data we have bears out the idea that people illegally coming through our southern border are facing comparable circumstances as those in war town countries with genocidal governments. But some of that is going to depend on what source you read. Heck, there are studies out there that say the US is a worse place to live depending on what metric you're using.

Aside: Look, no one has to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am a mother and I love my kids the same as you love yours and that I hate to see *any* children go through violent, horrific, traumatizing circumstances, but it would help the discussion, I feel like. "People who disagree with me on solutions to complicated problems don't think kids should suffer" is where I start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

Wow, I didn't say any of that. You asked for ideas, I gave ideas. I don't think anything will create utopia. I disagree that gaps can't be bridged. To believe that, I would have to believe that our system of government is entirely broken and I don't think that is true at this point in time. The biggest thing people who have different ideas need to do is compromise. But, I am under no illusion that compromising will create a utopia.

Sorry, I'll go back and read again when on my desktop. I thought that was your post about software and computerized systems for background checks going faster and communicating with the caravans of migrants to expidite their processing once they are here. I'm losing it today! I should abandon this thread until I can get to my PC. Or until I don't have preggo-mush-for-brains.

My bigger point was that the bridge is going to be difficult between those who think ICE should be abolished and those who think it should be funded better to operate more efficiently. There isn't anything I can see there to compromise on, but I could be missing something, as you have so graciously pointed out despite my unclear posting habits today!

Edited by EmseB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AmandaVT said:

 

Would you please use another word besides "illegals"? It's dehumanizing and it really bothers me. It's akin to hearing "Retards" or the N word. 😥

Ok....law breakers who did illegal things....is that better? Alleged criminals?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bibiche said:

FFS. Human beings are not "illegal." They might be undocumented, in an irregular situation, but NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL. That is such a dehumanizing term.

Fine....they are breaking the law, they are criminals. Human beings can be criminals and when those who were detained were either alleged criminals or actual criminals. It is not dehumanizing to call someone who breaks the law a criminal...it is simply accurate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EmseB said:

You cut out the rest of my post that answered these questions. If I were that desperate, I would think long and hard about trading one set of traumatic, violent, possibly deadly circumstances for another. But no, I don't think the data we have bears out the idea that people illegally coming through our southern border are facing comparable circumstances as those in war town countries with genocidal governments. But some of that is going to depend on what source you read. Heck, there are studies out there that say the US is a worse place to live depending on what metric you're using.

Aside: Look, no one has to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am a mother and I love my kids the same as you love yours and that I hate to see *any* children go through violent, horrific, traumatizing circumstances, but it would help the discussion, I feel like. "People who disagree with me on solutions to complicated problems don't think kids should suffer" is where I start.


I don't see where you're giving the benefit of the doubt to the mothers and fathers who are crossing the border with their children.  You seem to think that they aren't thinking long and hard.  

I have no idea what decision I would make in that circumstance.  Because, I am fortunate enough to never have faced it.  So,  since I think the desire to protect one's children is pretty universal, I have to assume that the people with way more information than I have, AKA the immigrants themselves, are making decisions make sense in their context.  

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

Perhaps some of you should do a bit of research into why conditions are so poor in those countries that families are fleeing (using credible sources).  The US is culpable in a major way through foreign policy travesty after travesty designed to make life better for US at the expense of everyone else.  For a bunch of autodidacts and persons teaching history to our own children we sure are an uneducated bunch, no?  This is ultimately OUR fault.  To think we should take the fruits of our decades of labor and blame it on the victims WE CREATED is just inexcusable.  Do your homework, and stop pretending to have superior moral and family values defined by your compassionate religious icon.  You know who you are.

I am currently reading This Land is Our Land: An Immigrant's Manifesto in preparation for DS16's continuing current events education. It is illuminating, to say the least.

6 hours ago, bibiche said:

Thank you for saying this. We have blood on our hands, and we're adding more.

And should we put together a book list?  Here is a start:

The Last Colonial Massacre

Bitter Fruit

The Killing Zone

And I will look at these as well. Thanks for posting them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

What is your evidence of this? The reports we've seen of our own conditions are of people in cages, with no heat or sanitation let alone room to sleep lying down. How can you say conditions in other refugee camps are better/worse? Have you been there? Seen reports?

If you had a credible fear for your life and the only (legal) place to wait for adjudication was rife with drug traffickers would you stay put or cross where you could and take your chances? NM, you said you'd happily endure such conditions to preserve your scruples. People can be screened anywhere within the US. It needn't be at the border. We needn't require  or insist on a max. 100 persons/families a day, for ex.

Again, as others have asked...what would *you* have an asylum seeker do if they were credibly in fear?

 

Has there been any proof of children being kept in cages or without sanitary conditions? Because I even googled it before posting and the closest I could find to actual pictures are closely cropped ones from the Obama era, as in long ago, and cannot tell if the kids are behind a fence or in an actual cage with a roof on it. Children in play yards at schools have fences around them. In this day and age, I would expect concrete proof of human violations. And then my next question would be...and what about the homeless, needy, helpless, disabled, elderly, abused, ill Americans and why the media isn’t concerned with that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Has there been any proof of children being kept in cages or without sanitary conditions? Because I even googled it before posting and the closest I could find to actual pictures are closely cropped ones from the Obama era, as in long ago, and cannot tell if the kids are behind a fence or in an actual cage with a roof on it. Children in play yards at schools have fences around them. In this day and age, I would expect concrete proof of human violations. And then my next question would be...and what about the homeless, needy, helpless, disabled, elderly, abused, ill Americans and why the media isn’t concerned with that?

Photographic proof? I don’t know. I think many of us are recalling articles like this: https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/592540/

The media does cover stories on other vulnerable individuals. I shudder at some of the daycare horror stories. 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:


I don't see where you're giving the benefit of the doubt to the mothers and fathers who are crossing the border with their children.  You seem to think that they aren't thinking long and hard.  

I have no idea what decision I would make in that circumstance.  Because, I am fortunate enough to never have faced it.  So,  since I think the desire to protect one's children is pretty universal, I have to assume that the people with way more information than I have, AKA the immigrants themselves, are making decisions make sense in their context.  

And I think, to the greatest extent possible, they should be deterred from trafficking themselves and their children illegally across the southern border of the US. The option of coming in that way should be unpalatable precisely because of how dangerous it is. If they don't know that it is deadly, illegal, and will likely end up with them being separated from their children, in a detention center, and likely deported after a lengthy bureaucratic process, *if* they don't die crossing the desert and the river, *if* they don't get apprehended by the Mexican military/police, *if* they don't end up scammed and abandoned by their coyote or sold into some sweatshop where they will be constantly in fear of the law enforcement they are trying to avoid during crossing, they should know that those things. If they do know and are making that choice anyway, as you claim, then who bears the responsibility for them breaking the law? Who is responsible for their children? What should law enforcement do about hundreds of thousands of people attempting this? 

Unless and until Congress changes the law, what they are doing is horribly, horribly dangerous and traumatizing, specifically to children. If they truly do have the knowledge as you say, then they also must know that if they are being persecuted by their government, there is a legal way to claim asylum in that doesn't involve breaking any laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Janeway said:

And then my next question would be...and what about the homeless, needy, helpless, disabled, elderly, abused, ill Americans and why the media isn’t concerned with that?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Can’t we be concerned about all types of human suffering? At least in the media I consume, the types of problems you mention are regularly covered. As in, pretty much everyday I read (I don’t watch news and rarely listen to news) stories about those things. What are the media sources where those things aren’t covered?

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SKL said:

 

A lot of the reporting on this issue is just plain untrue, which is unhelpful to the actual people needing help.

 

Can you please provide several examples of mainstream media reports on this issue that are just plan untrue. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

If you look it up you'll find out just how often that happens. U.S. citizens have been held, immigrants here legally have been held. They weren't given the opportunity to prove who they are. We have become a show me your papers country, and even then they won't look at your papers when you can prove you have a right to be here. 

I'm just sick about it. This isn't political. It's about being humane. 

We are also telling people who show papers that their papers are no good. What a scary thing. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/30/643218390/report-u-s-denies-passports-and-questions-americans-birth-certificates 

10 hours ago, Janeway said:

They were breaking the law. And I do not think anyone should concern themselves with whether or not criminal parents should be separated from their children. They should be concerned about the fact that the parents were breaking the law and what kind of influence those people are on their children. And why did they come here? Many passed through several countries to get here because the US has become a welfare state. Most countries do not allow this. I do not think any country really allows what the US puts up with and I blame the media for making out criminals are victims and ignoring what those who follow the law go through.

All day long as I've thought of this I've been hearing Portia on repeat in my head- "The quality of mercy is not strained..."  We don't have to demand our pounds of flesh.

 

9 hours ago, TechWife said:

Yes, it is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trump-administration.html

Also, yesterday, the care of the children was not taken into account at all when the raids occurred. Children were stranded at school, went home to empty houses, etc.. - no care was taken for the children. CHILDREN.

I don't believe it was a coincidence that it was the first day of school for the children. 

  • Like 8
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know these are written as statements, but I'm genuinely curious if people agree or disagree with any of these or where the starting premises are from people in this thread. Or I'm interested in how you would change these statements to agree with your position. I'm trying to make this apolitical but I guess a lot of these touch on current laws. BUT I'm wondering if you (anyone in the thread) agree or disagree that:

1a) There should be no such thing as crossing into the US illegally. Anyone should be able to come in at any time without any documentation. Anyone crossing should be allowed to enter the US at any geographic point they are able to use via whatever means they are able to find.

or:

1b) There should be no penalty for crossing the border illegally, even if it is still technically illegal by law (no enforcement of any border crossing laws like 8 USC 1325)

2) If there is a penalty, it shouldn't be detention or deportation.

3) If people must be put in detention or processing status of some kind when entering the US without documentation or not at a legal POE, children should be housed with adults regardless of proof of family relationships or criminal background checks of anyone involved (because those would take too much time). Anyone traveling with a minor should be given the benefit of the doubt that the child is in fact their own and children should be housed with adults under all circumstances at border facilities. Border facilities should be funded so that each family unit or adult/minor group can live together until they are processed, if they need to be processed at all.

4) Anyone coming here without proper documentation or through improper channels must assumed to be doing so because it is impossible for them to follow the legal process of entering at a POE and asking for asylum. It should be assumed that they are all seeking asylum as it is legally defined, or their lives are being threatened specifically by gangs or other criminals, therefore they are not entering illegally, but rather simply entering at some place that is not a POE, but will request asylum at a later date. If they are apprehended while crossing, they should be released into the US without having to wait for any red tape or processing because they will declare asylum later. If a court determination is required, they should be able to live and work in the US sans visas or any documentation while their case is processed.

4a) If anyone's asylum claims are denied by the courts, they should be allowed to stay in the US anyway under some other protection.

5) By virtue of everything in #4, aforementioned gang members and other criminals who are threatening the lives of asylum seekers are not entering the US illegally via the southern border because everyone who is entering is by default an asylum seeker. Anyone who thinks criminals and gang members are entering illegally via the southern border only use that as scare-mongering rhetoric to keep everyone out who needs to be here, and as a way to separate children from their families.

5a) Criminals, gang members, human trafficking for labor, sex trafficking, etc., are such a tiny percentage of who is crossing the border illegally that we can't use those cases as any kind of basis for immigration enforcement or policy. They aren't really issues, just red herrings.

6) Since the journey is so dangerous, we must assume that anyone attempting it is doing so because they have no other choice, thus we must not deter them from entering this way (via desert/river crossing with coyote or other guide).

7) If people are living here and working here illegally (via illegal entry with no documentation), ICE/CBP should not arrest, detain, or deport them. The laws concerning illegal immigration and workers should not be enforced. But if they are enforced (if someone here illegally is arrested, detained, or deported), their children should be kept with them in any detention facility at all times. Children should not be held at school or anywhere else until a legal guardian can come get them, they should be transported to where their parents are being processed or detained.

 

Edited by EmseB

Share this post


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

Ok....law breakers who did illegal things....is that better? Alleged criminals?

Some say “undocumented immigrants” or the like. 

Even just from a grammar standpoint, “illegals” doesn’t sound right. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I think there is a lot of merit in expanding our embassies, and adding personnel. Our expats and diplomats are in a better position to process these applications due to having first hand knowledge of the culture, the conditions, the local governments, etc. They have a better chance of being less arbitrary, but also of potentially knowing if they are indeed fraudulent applications. Sort of like it would be nice to sometimes let locals make the decision of how things get done locally, then handed down from on high from people who have NO CLUE what is going on in your community. 

I think that while there will always be abuses, because where there are humans there will be abuse, potentially this system might have a chance at being much better than our current model. Also, by having applications go to our embassies, we get an idea of the scale of the crisis before they arrive which makes planning what to do and how to meet the need so much easier. 

Still, unless we reform how many we are willing to take, undocumented persons is going to continue to be a massive issue. We can't have tens of millions in crisis around the world, and have the ceiling set at 30,000 (the max the US was willing to take for 2019) unless we are going to help them in their home countries which means getting pretty darn active in stabilizing nations, getting money into the hands of the right people, and stopping our CIA game of promoting dictators for "reasons". Refugees and asylum seekers in much larger numbers than that will still come in the hopes of being one of the lucky 30,000 when their immigration hearing occurs.

Can I address some of the problems with this idea?  I’m not directing this just at you, Faith-manor because I see this idea floated often.

Allowing people to apply for asylum at embassies would be overwhelming for the US.  There are countries where literally everyone qualifies for asylum.  Some where all women qualify.  Some where entire minority populations qualify.  So many people.  Right now, the vast majority of those people cannot claim asylum in the US because they cannot physically get there.  Most of the point of the US nonimmigrant visa system is to keep people from getting a visa who might not leave the US, so anyone who even is suspected of wanting to claim asylum won’t get a visa.  There’s actually been in increase in people from the eastern hemisphere finding a way to get to Central or South America and then making the same trek to the southern US border that Central Americans have been doing, simply because it’s so difficult to claim asylum in the US.

It would be very difficult to process all of those asylum claims overseas.  People have a right to have their claim adjudicated if they can show credible fear of persecution. Would we then send US immigration judges to all embassies and/or consulates around the world?  Or would we try to use the internet so people can “appear” in court?  Beyond that, are we will to pay for the huge (and it would have to be huge) increase in the number of US citizens working overseas to process all of these asylum applications?  Plus the facilities to process those applications?  Embassies and consulates do not have that kind of infrastructure right now.  It would take years to be able to handle this.

All is this is why we also have a refugee system.  It’s designed to help people who are outside the US, and it has very strict rules about who qualifies as a refugee.  The UN already has the infrastructure set up around the world to help refugees in their host countries (even though they can never do enough).  The UN makes all of the decisions about whether a refugee can apply for resettlement (nearly all refugees either return home or stay in their host country).  And the UN chooses what country refugees apply to. I don’t think the refugee system helps enough people, but even in its limited state it’s the best we have right now.

Again, on a more personal note, I spent the evening a few days ago in the home of a refugee family, as I often do. Three generations live in that small apartment with decades of being refugees.  The UN has applied for them to be resettled in the US.  They’ve already been waiting for a long time, but because the US has so drastically dropped its refugee admissions, they really have no concrete hope of resettlement unless US policy changes. So they get the best jobs they can find, which is barely enough to pay the $100/month rent on their apartment.  The UN helps with school fees because they can’t send their kids to local schools, but they’re still behind in school because of the constant disruption to their lives.  They don’t eat much, and the girls least of all, because there’s not enough food for everyone every day.  They absolutely can’t go home, even though they desperately wish their home country was safe and that they could build it into something great.  Resettlement is their only hope to change their lives because their current existence is barely sustainable. Maybe after a decade things will get better, but by then it will be too late for the girls.

And again, who will help these people if the US won’t? Our refugee system has been in place for decades and functioning reasonably well.  Resettled refugees struggle and need support, but they are being integrated into the US.  We have the resources, so many more resources that the places where refugees are currently being hosted.  We could accept more asylum seekers.  

We could at the very least make keeping children with their parents a priority when they apply for asylum according to US and international law.  Most of the time I can understand where people are coming from when I disagree with them about a policy.  But I cannot even begin to fathom how anyone can be okay with the family separation policy in the US.

  • Like 9

Share this post


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

I know these are written as statements, but I'm genuinely curious if people agree or disagree with any of these or where the starting premises are from people in this thread. Or I'm interested in how you would change these statements to agree with your position. I'm trying to make this apolitical but I guess a lot of these touch on current laws. BUT I'm wondering if you (anyone in the thread) agree or disagree that:

1a) There should be no such thing as crossing into the US illegally. Anyone should be able to come in at any time without any documentation. Anyone crossing should be allowed to enter the US at any geographic point they are able to use via whatever means they are able to find.

or:

1b) There should be no penalty for crossing the border illegally, even if it is still technically illegal by law (no enforcement of any border crossing laws like 8 USC 1325)

2) If there is a penalty, it shouldn't be detention or deportation.

3) If people must be put in detention or processing status of some kind when entering the US without documentation or not at a legal POE, children should be housed with adults regardless of proof of family relationships or criminal background checks of anyone involved (because those would take too much time). Anyone traveling with a minor should be given the benefit of the doubt that the child is in fact their own and children should be housed with adults under all circumstances at border facilities. Border facilities should be funded so that each family unit or adult/minor group can live together until they are processed, if they need to be processed at all.

4) Anyone coming here without proper documentation or through improper channels must assumed to be doing so because it is impossible for them to follow the legal process of entering at a POE and asking for asylum. It should be assumed that they are all seeking asylum as it is legally defined, or their lives are being threatened specifically by gangs or other criminals, therefore they are not entering illegally, but rather simply entering at some place that is not a POE, but will request asylum at a later date. If they are apprehended while crossing, they should be released into the US without having to wait for any red tape or processing because they will declare asylum later. If a court determination is required, they should be able to live and work in the US sans visas or any documentation while their case is processed.

4a) If anyone's asylum claims are denied by the courts, they should be allowed to stay in the US anyway under some other protection.

5) By virtue of everything in #4, aforementioned gang members and other criminals who are threatening the lives of asylum seekers are not entering the US illegally via the southern border because everyone who is entering is by default an asylum seeker. Anyone who thinks criminals and gang members are entering illegally via the southern border only use that as scare-mongering rhetoric to keep everyone out who needs to be here, and as a way to separate children from their families.

5a) Criminals, gang members, human trafficking for labor, sex trafficking, etc., are such a tiny percentage of who is crossing the border illegally that we can't use those cases as any kind of basis for immigration enforcement or policy. They aren't really issues, just red herrings.

6) Since the journey is so dangerous, we must assume that anyone attempting it is doing so because they have no other choice, thus we must not deter them from entering this way (via desert/river crossing with coyote or other guide).

7) If people are living here and working here illegally (via illegal entry with no documentation), ICE/CBP should not arrest, detain, or deport them. The laws concerning illegal immigration and workers should not be enforced. But if they are enforced (if someone here illegally is arrested, detained, or deported), their children should be kept with them in any detention facility at all times. Children should not be held at school or anywhere else until a legal guardian can come get them, they should be transported to where their parents are being processed or detained.

 

1a. Disagree.  But this conflates asylum seekers with migrants.  People have the right to claim asylum, and that does not preclude an undocumented entry.

1b.  This depends on what you mean by a penalty.  Again, for asylum seekers, their method of entry doesn’t preclude them from claiming asylum.  There are plenty of penalties for migrants who are undocumented.

2. No deportation or detention for asylum seekers who pass their credible fear test.  Deportation is against international law and detention isn’t viable because of the amount of time it takes for the US to process their applications.  Asylum seekers are supposed to have a legal right to work in the US while they’re waiting.  In some cases I’m okay with deportation or detention for undocumented immigrants, but I think they need to have committed a serious crime to make it worth deporting them.  I can’t see any point in long-term detention for undocumented immigrants.  I am especially opposed to deportation for undocumented people who have US citizen family members, especially children; people who entered the US as children; and people who have been in the US for many years.  The majority of undocumented people fall into these categories.

3. Protecting children is important.  I completely agree that not all groups crossing the border claiming to be families are actually families.  But erring on the side of separating all of these groups will damage *all* children.  That is not acceptable to me.  Instead, we need to find ways to protect children and determine if the people they are with are family without automatically separating everyone.  I know that this solution isn’t perfect.  But it’s better than separating all children from their families.

4a. I don’t need to assume anything about asylum seekers.  Either they pass their credible fear test and can continue their asylum claim, or they don’t.  If someone doesn’t claim asylum and doesn’t have a visa, then they’ll be denied entry.  

4b. They can if they qualify for a different type of protection. 

5. We want to keep criminals and human traffickers out who are threatening asylum seekers. They don’t qualify for asylum.  That’s why we have a credible fear test and why there is an asylum process.  Claiming asylum isn’t and never has been a free pass.

6. The journey is dangerous.  I wish no one had to make it to get to safety.  I wish their homes were safe.  I don’t assume everyone making the journey made the right choice.  But I also don’t assume I know better than they do.  I would love to see the US do more to make sure no one even wants to make the journey, because their homes are safe.  But asylum seekers have a legal right to claim asylum.

7. See 2 above. Personally, I think the laws on the books are far too harsh and that’s why they’re often not enforced.  We need a more humane system that accounts for the fact that most undocumented people have been in the US for a long time, have US citizen family members, and/or were brought to the US as children.  We need to accept the reality we have and deal with that, not the one we wish we had.  

Edited by Amira
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Janeway said:

Fine....they are breaking the law, they are criminals. Human beings can be criminals and when those who were detained were either alleged criminals or actual criminals. It is not dehumanizing to call someone who breaks the law a criminal...it is simply accurate.

Requesting asylum is not illegal, and Illegal entry is only a misdemeanor. Have you ever known anyone who was charged with a misdemeanor? Were they demonized, caged, and treated as subhuman for it?  Were their babies and children stolen from them?  Referring to desperate people fleeing violence and poverty as "criminals" and "illegals" is designed to make them seem less human and less deserving of basic human rights. And, sadly, it seems to be working. 😥

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Janeway said:

Has there been any proof of children being kept in cages or without sanitary conditions? Because I even googled it before posting and the closest I could find to actual pictures are closely cropped ones from the Obama era, as in long ago, and cannot tell if the kids are behind a fence or in an actual cage with a roof on it. Children in play yards at schools have fences around them. In this day and age, I would expect concrete proof of human violations. 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the eyewitness accounts from dozens of people who have seen these facilities, including doctors, lawyers, members of congress, and even some of the guards, are just making it all up???  Would you like to read graphic quotes from reports on the sexual abuse of children by guards? Want to read about the guards who dealt with a massive outbreak of lice by giving the children shampoo and two combs and telling them to sort it out themselves, then punished the children for losing one of the combs by taking all their mats and blankets and making them sleep on the concrete floor? Would you like to see some quotes from the FB group of more than 9500 CBP staff who made racist jokes about immigrants and laughed about the death of children? Have you read the interview with the American citizen who was falsely held for nearly month who was not allowed to shower or brush his teeth the entire time and lost 26 lbs because of lack of food? The administration's response to these accusations wasn't to deny they happened — they literally argued in court that the government has no obligation to provide detainees with toothbrushes, soap, or towels.

Here is ONE of many published reports confirming the horrific condition these children are being held in:

Quote

Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they’ve just met, the lawyers said. Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants. Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.
.....

Elora Mukherjee said the conditions in Clint were the worst she had seen in any facility in her 12-year career. “So many children are sick, they have the flu, and they’re not being properly treated,” she said. The Associated Press, which first reported on conditions at the facility earlier this week, found that it was housing three infants, all with teen mothers, along with a 1-year-old, two 2-year-olds and a 3-year-old. It said there were dozens more children under the age of 12.

Together, the group of six lawyers met with 60 children in Clint this week who ranged from 5 months to 17 years old. The infants were either children of minor parents, who were also detained, or had been separated from adult family members with whom they had crossed the border. The separated children were now alone, being cared for by other young detainees.
.....

When the lawyers arrived, federal officials said that more than 350 children were detained at the facility. The officials did not disclose the facility’s capacity but said the population had exceeded it. By the time the lawyers left on Wednesday night, border officials told them that about 200 of the children had been transferred elsewhere but did not say where they had been sent.

“That’s what’s keeping me up at night,” Ms. Mukherjee said.

Some sick children were being quarantined in the facility. The lawyers were allowed to speak to the children by phone, but their requests to meet with them in person and observe the conditions they were being held in were denied.

The children told the lawyers they were given the same meals every day — instant oats for breakfast, instant noodles for lunch, a frozen burrito for dinner, along with a few cookies and juice packets — which many said was not enough. “Nearly every child I spoke with said that they were hungry,” Ms. Mukherjee said.

Another group of lawyers conducting inspections under the same federal court settlement said they discovered similar conditions earlier this month at six other facilities in Texas. At the Border Patrol’s Central Processing Center in McAllen, Tex. — often known as “Ursula” — the lawyers encountered a 17-year-old mother from Guatemala who couldn’t stand because of complications from an emergency C-section, and who was caring for a sick and dirty premature baby.

“When we encountered the baby and her mom, the baby was filthy. They wouldn’t give her any water to wash her. And I took a Kleenex and I washed around her neck black dirt,” said Hope Frye, who was leading the group, adding, “Not a little stuff — dirt.”

After government lawyers argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco this week that amenities such as soap and toothbrushes should not be mandated under the legal settlement originally agreed to between the government and migrant families in 1997 and amended several times since then, all three judges voiced dismay.

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 5
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Janeway said:

...and what about the homeless, needy, helpless, disabled, elderly, abused, ill Americans and why the media isn’t concerned with that?

This is a really ironic statement considering that ALL of these groups are getting screwed by the same administration that is targeting immigrants, with proposed cuts to social security, medicare, CHIP, food stamps, veteran's benefits, health insurance, etc.  And I can assure you that "the media" are covering those issues, and the people who are upset about what's happening to immigrants are equally upset about plans to cut services to the poor and elderly in order to fund a massive tax cut that mostly benefitted billionaires. 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the last year, my family has been working with asylum seekers who have been processed at the border and released to go stay with family or sponsors.  They come through my town on Greyhound buses.  They’re on buses for days, and sometimes have no food or money or diapers or coats in the winter.  So for the past year, we’ve been meeting (and coordinating with other people to help meet) four buses a day and bring them food, water, clothing, diapers, small toys, coats, etc.  It has been a major project, and we’ve talked to hundreds of refugees.  The stories mostly would break your heart.  And I don’t care what your politics are; I can’t imagine anyone talking to these people, seeing them and the condition they’re in, listening to 6 year olds and 12 year olds tell about being ripped from their families and stuck in freezing cages with not much food and no clean clothes or ability to shower, with no way to know how long this will go on.  Nobody could think this was humane.  The child separations never stopped.  

And that doesn’t even get into the stories of why they left.  Some of them are just hoping for better jobs, money, circumstances.  Some have lost farms because of climate change.  But a whole lot of them left because the gangs that run their hometowns have moved on from raping the mother to raping her daughter.  Threatening to kill her son. It takes major courage and resources of various kinds to flee.  

Edited by Terabith
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 10
  • Sad 9

Share this post


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

For the last year, my family has been working with asylum seekers who have been processed at the border and released to go stay with family or sponsors.  They come through my town on Greyhound buses.  They’re on buses for days, and sometimes have no food or money or diapers or coats in the winter.  So for the past year, we’ve been meeting (and coordinating with other people to help meet) four buses a day and bring them food, water, clothing, diapers, small toys, coats, etc.  It has been a major project, and we’ve talked to hundreds of refugees.  The stories mostly would break your heart.  And I don’t care what your politics are; I can’t imagine anyone talking to these people, seeing them and the condition they’re in, listening to 6 year olds and 12 year olds tell about being ripped from their families and stuck in freezing cages with not much food and no clean clothes or ability to shower, with no way to know how long this will go on.  Nobody could think this was humane.  The child separations never stopped.  

And that doesn’t even get into the stories of why they left.  Some of them are just hoping for better jobs, money, circumstances.  Some have lost farms because of climate change.  But a whole lot of them left because the gangs that run their hometowns have moved on from raping the mother to raping her daughter.  Threatening to kill her son. It takes major courage and resources of various kinds to flee.  

Do you work with a specific group that donations could be made to?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Janeway said:

Fine....they are breaking the law, they are criminals. Human beings can be criminals and when those who were detained were either alleged criminals or actual criminals. It is not dehumanizing to call someone who breaks the law a criminal...it is simply accurate.

Being in the country illegally is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor. If you want to use the word "criminals" to apply to them, then please be consistent and use it for yourself or your loved ones the next time they get a speeding ticket, parking violation, or you see someone publicly intoxicated but otherwise not hurting anyone, or use obscenities where prohibited, you kid breaks a piece of public property or picks protected wildflowers, or..... These are all crimes.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Requesting asylum is not illegal, and Illegal entry is only a misdemeanor. Have you ever known anyone who was charged with a misdemeanor? Were they demonized, caged, and treated as subhuman for it?  Were their babies and children stolen from them?  Referring to desperate people fleeing violence and poverty as "criminals" and "illegals" is designed to make them seem less human and less deserving of basic human rights. And, sadly, it seems to be working. 😥

 

Exactly this. And it is right out of the fascist playbook.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amira said:

Can I address some of the problems with this idea?  I’m not directing this just at you, Faith-manor because I see this idea floated often.

Allowing people to apply for asylum at embassies would be overwhelming for the US.  There are countries where literally everyone qualifies for asylum.  Some where all women qualify.  Some where entire minority populations qualify.  So many people.  Right now, the vast majority of those people cannot claim asylum in the US because they cannot physically get there.  Most of the point of the US nonimmigrant visa system is to keep people from getting a visa who might not leave the US, so anyone who even is suspected of wanting to claim asylum won’t get a visa.  There’s actually been in increase in people from the eastern hemisphere finding a way to get to Central or South America and then making the same trek to the southern US border that Central Americans have been doing, simply because it’s so difficult to claim asylum in the US.

It would be very difficult to process all of those asylum claims overseas.  People have a right to have their claim adjudicated if they can show credible fear of persecution. Would we then send US immigration judges to all embassies and/or consulates around the world?  Or would we try to use the internet so people can “appear” in court?  Beyond that, are we will to pay for the huge (and it would have to be huge) increase in the number of US citizens working overseas to process all of these asylum applications?  Plus the facilities to process those applications?  Embassies and consulates do not have that kind of infrastructure right now.  It would take years to be able to handle this.

All is this is why we also have a refugee system.  It’s designed to help people who are outside the US, and it has very strict rules about who qualifies as a refugee.  The UN already has the infrastructure set up around the world to help refugees in their host countries (even though they can never do enough).  The UN makes all of the decisions about whether a refugee can apply for resettlement (nearly all refugees either return home or stay in their host country).  And the UN chooses what country refugees apply to. I don’t think the refugee system helps enough people, but even in its limited state it’s the best we have right now.

Again, on a more personal note, I spent the evening a few days ago in the home of a refugee family, as I often do. Three generations live in that small apartment with decades of being refugees.  The UN has applied for them to be resettled in the US.  They’ve already been waiting for a long time, but because the US has so drastically dropped its refugee admissions, they really have no concrete hope of resettlement unless US policy changes. So they get the best jobs they can find, which is barely enough to pay the $100/month rent on their apartment.  The UN helps with school fees because they can’t send their kids to local schools, but they’re still behind in school because of the constant disruption to their lives.  They don’t eat much, and the girls least of all, because there’s not enough food for everyone every day.  They absolutely can’t go home, even though they desperately wish their home country was safe and that they could build it into something great.  Resettlement is their only hope to change their lives because their current existence is barely sustainable. Maybe after a decade things will get better, but by then it will be too late for the girls.

And again, who will help these people if the US won’t? Our refugee system has been in place for decades and functioning reasonably well.  Resettled refugees struggle and need support, but they are being integrated into the US.  We have the resources, so many more resources that the places where refugees are currently being hosted.  We could accept more asylum seekers.  

We could at the very least make keeping children with their parents a priority when they apply for asylum according to US and international law.  Most of the time I can understand where people are coming from when I disagree with them about a policy.  But I cannot even begin to fathom how anyone can be okay with the family separation policy in the US.


Just to add to this, I think everyone should see these graphs of refugee admittance.  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states They cover the past twenty years and show how many are being admitted to the U.S., what the cap is, etc.

Given the world crises that we have had a hand in creating, these charts are abysmal when you see the sharp decline under this administration.

  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Exactly this. And it is right out of the fascist playbook.

It's horrifying to see the parallels between what is happening in the US and what happened in Nazi Germany, for example. One likes to think that people would make the right choice. One realizes with horror and dismay that many people are either looking the other way or, worse, fully supportive of the inhumanity. This isn't hyperbole. This is how it happens.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I will NEVER let my kids do field work locally, nor dairy work which is exceptionally dangerous and only pays minimum wage

My dd works in a local farm’s storefront right now, and she’s told me that she’s considering applying as a picker for next year.  I’m struggling with that.  On the plus side, I know her employers, know their farm, and believe she’ll be safe (to the degree that the work can be.) I also think every capable person should have a taste of hard labor.  

But I also don’t want her to be lulled into thinking these are the typical conditions of farm labor. And my privileged @$$ is showing.  Because, just like every other parent, I want better for my kid, even when we’re talking just one or two growing seasons, after which she can easily choose to go right back to her privileged life, get a higher education or training, and get a “real” job.

Of course, supporting her desire to do this could come in handy for our family when our industrial food system collapses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

Being in the country illegally is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor. If you want to use the word "criminals" to apply to them, then please be consistent and use it for yourself or your loved ones the next time they get a speeding ticket, parking violation, or you see someone publicly intoxicated but otherwise not hurting anyone, or use obscenities where prohibited, you kid breaks a piece of public property or picks protected wildflowers, or..... These are all crimes.

First time is a misdemeanor, second a felony. https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/illegal-immigration-crime And the additional crimes often committed such as tax evasion can be felonies too.  I have never gotten any sort of parking ticket or that other stuff you listed...but..if I did..I too would be a criminal..breaking a crime. Someone currently in the act of breaking a crime is a criminal. I would assume it is not like alcoholism, it is something most people could eventually make right and not "be a criminal." But someone who has a crime of habit, would, like how an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, would then be a criminal for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EmseB said:

I know these are written as statements, but I'm genuinely curious if people agree or disagree with any of these or where the starting premises are from people in this thread. Or I'm interested in how you would change these statements to agree with your position.

Emse, I appreciate your articulation of these issues. I agree with your essential concerns, as I understand them: the journey and border crossing are dangerous. Abuse by traffickers is a valid concern. I do believe that you want to protect children.

For the most part, I'm happy to sign on to the answers Amira gave above.

I would add that I see a moral hierarchy here.

Our current system of child separations is *guaranteed* to cause significant damage to those children. We've had multiple families on this board trying, with tears and agony, to raise children with RAD. We have all worried with them, offered hugs and support. Well, our current system is causing more of that on a vast scale. Not every child will get RAD, no, but some will, and all will suffer. That's our responsibility. Their parents brought them on this journey, but how we choose to respond is our choice and our responsibility.

In my moral hierarchy, refraining from actions which significantly harm children outranks prosecuting misdemeanors.

It outranks sending undocumented immigrants, who have worked here for years and paid taxes, back home.

It outranks arresting undocumented immigrants who are harvesting our crops or processing our chickens.

When our country's food production system actually depends on the labor of undocumented immigrants, I think arresting those immigrants and sending them home for the misdemeanor of crossing the border is the height of hypocrisy. We all know that, until the system is changed, they will simply be replaced in the fields and factories by more undocumented immigrants, or else the crops will rot and prices will rise. So-- what's the point?*

If we want to change the flow of immigration, we need to change the systems that produce it. We need a guest worker program, with a path to citizenship. We need to send aid to countries that helps fix the problems people flee. We need to stop propping up regimes which cause people harm in their own countries.

If we want to improve the conditions under which people work, we need to address those conditions at the level of the employers.

I know that changing those systems is hard, while arresting people is comparatively easy. But separating families causes harm, and that is our responsibility. Let's undertake the hard work. Let's fix the systems. Let's not let our failure to do that work hurt those who are most blameless and vulnerable, the children of the immigrants.

*I think there is a point, but it's not one I can comment on while remaining within the rules of this board, so I'll leave it to your imagination. Or, come over to the politics club.

Edited by Innisfree
Spelling
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

Exactly this. And it is right out of the fascist playbook.

 

1 hour ago, bibiche said:

It's horrifying to see the parallels between what is happening in the US and what happened in Nazi Germany, for example. One likes to think that people would make the right choice. One realizes with horror and dismay that many people are either looking the other way or, worse, fully supportive of the inhumanity. This isn't hyperbole. This is how it happens.

Ditto.

History rhymes. We know where this is possibly/probably heading. History tells us (and not just from one example). We all have a choice to make about which side of *this* history we want to be on.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I have never gotten any sort of parking ticket or that other stuff you listed...but..if I did..I too would be a criminal..breaking a crime. Someone currently in the act of breaking a crime is a criminal. I would assume it is not like alcoholism, it is something most people could eventually make right and not "be a criminal." But someone who has a crime of habit, would, like how an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, would then be a criminal for life.

 

Do most people seriously view people who have gotten traffic tickets as criminals? NO. And how the heck is alcoholism a crime? Oh, wait, it's not. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are spending an awful lot of money trying to prevent immigration. We have walls and fences, patrols, attorneys who show up at deportation hearings for unrepresented toddlers, flights for people being sent wherever, detention centers, foster care, ICE, raids...it's almost like prohibition. This doesn't even include the lost taxes as people are paid under the table, denied the ability to work and earn to their potential and become job creators, and put out of work during raids and detention. It's like our whole immigration and visa/green card policies and enforcement are to make sure as few people as possible qualify and not to make sure the process is as smooth, fair, and secure as possible. 

The trip to America and all the coyote issues and dangers are largely because it's virtually impossible to immigrate legally. Make it easier to come legally and they can come safely. 

Why? Why is our country so determined to keep people out? We aren't full. Our population density is low. Except for the Chinese Exclusion Act, most of our history did allow pretty free immigration and history shows people assimilated and contributed significantly. People are our biggest resource and immigrants, who have the initiative to do something hard- they have a lot of promise. 

We can't afford to care for immigrants? Most people aren't asking for help and seek to be self sufficient. We can't afford all this energy and money spent to keep people out and detain them once here. The people picked up in the raid were working. We could really help more of everyone in our country- immigrants and native born-if we took the money spent on control and invested it in people's futures.

Why can't my neighbor's mother in law visit her grandchild? They bought a big house so she'd have a room when she came to visit and 12 years later she still has not had her visa approved and has not seen her grandchild. Now she's too old to travel here and her son is too sick to travel home. It's cruel and senseless. 

Economic protection? We're shooting ourselves in the foot! Immigrants are also job creators, tax payers, and keep our prices lower.

Terrorism and crime? It's a false choice. We can increase legal visas and immigration and still conduct background checks and refuse entry to dangerous people. We'd probably have an easier time if the focus was primarily on finding the dangerous people. Making it easier for people to come legally does not mean open borders. It means a presumption of worth vs a presumption of worthlessness. 

My proposal- ease the crisis by making it easier for people to come legally and safely. Spend our time finding, deporting, and detaining people who are real threats. Divert some of this money to programs that help people get on their feet regardless of their citizenship. Offset the associated costs by some kind of a special green card tax. Maybe green card holders or new citizens could agree to pay 5-10% more in income taxes for a limited time-10yrs or so-after they've been here 5-10 years and have had enough time to give us a return on our investment. But I'm not paid to solve the problem. I'm sure we have people working on other solutions that are humane and just.

 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Janeway said:

Fine....they are breaking the law, they are criminals.

Morality transcends laws.

We try to make laws reflect morality, but many laws, in many times and places, have been immoral.

Many thoughtful, highly moral people have decided that in those situations, breaking the law can even be a civic duty: witness the civil rights movement. 

When laws are immoral, we need to work together to change them.

Our behavior, in separating families and confining children, is less moral than the behavior of families fleeing desperate situations and looking for work and safety.

Regardless of who is legally in the right, our behavior in confining children is reprehensible. Laws don't make that right.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do have legal ways to come.  My area has many many people here on an H2B visa.  I haven't seen anyone yet reporting on why so many employers are hiring people without the visa, or why the undocumented workers who have been here longer aren't able to acquire one.  

What I think would help overall would be a change in school funding...the non-visa people do not want their children in study hall while their tax dollars are paying for ESL, and they sure don't want their child to be in remedial when they need advanced/honors or vo-tech.  All children need appropriate school-to-work coursework, and that isn't happening due to lack of unfunded mandates for the ESL, remedial and other needs the visa holder children have due to the nature of education in their home country -- these needs are enormous, students who aren't with a visa holder in this area in some schools can't even complete high school in five years due to the lack of funding for enough teachers to hold the required classes (Spring Valley NY for ex) and in other districts, there is nothing but required coursework or pay to play classes , which even the Board of Regents admits does not prepare a student for University.  Its ironic that ESL is offered for free to the level of fluency, but FL is not enough to meet  college admittance criteria in an FL major. 

Also, even bigger than giving displaced students appropriate coursework is the infrastructure.  Don't know about you, but here the enormous population growth that occurred when the visa holders families started living here year round meant the wells started going dry.  Mmm, manganese.  Lovely taste in ones mouth and does nothing for the appliances that are considered normal for any level of living.  But that's better than the raw sewage spilling into the waterways because the sewage plant isn't big enough to handle the sudden quadrupling of populaiton.  Be helpful if the employers started contributing to the impact they make on the local community. 

You can have all the morality you want.  Put some money behind and build the infrastructure and the housing.

Edited by HeighHo

Share this post


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

Be helpful if the employers started contributing to the impact they make on the local community. 

 

28 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

Put some money behind and build the infrastructure and the housing.

 

29 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

What I think would help overall would be a change in school funding

These are good ideas. I'd be happy to support them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American revolutionaries were criminals - they broke the law.

People who hid Jews or helped them get to safe countries were criminals - they broke the law. 

How can people be so heartless as to just think they deserve such treatment? (now I have an old Three Dog Night song in my head) .

Even if you never received a parking or speeding ticket, surely you know someone who did. Should they be caged? Kept from adequate food, water, and hygiene? Have their children ripped from their arms? After all, they're criminals who committed a misdemeanor.

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Amira said:

1a. Disagree.  But this conflates asylum seekers with migrants.  People have the right to claim asylum, and that does not preclude an undocumented entry.

1b.  This depends on what you mean by a penalty.  Again, for asylum seekers, their method of entry doesn’t preclude them from claiming asylum.  There are plenty of penalties for migrants who are undocumented.

2. No deportation or detention for asylum seekers who pass their credible fear test.  Deportation is against international law and detention isn’t viable because of the amount of time it takes for the US to process their applications.  Asylum seekers are supposed to have a legal right to work in the US while they’re waiting.  In some cases I’m okay with deportation or detention for undocumented immigrants, but I think they need to have committed a serious crime to make it worth deporting them.  I can’t see any point in long-term detention for undocumented immigrants.  I am especially opposed to deportation for undocumented people who have US citizen family members, especially children; people who entered the US as children; and people who have been in the US for many years.  The majority of undocumented people fall into these categories.

3. Protecting children is important.  I completely agree that not all groups crossing the border claiming to be families are actually families.  But erring on the side of separating all of these groups will damage *all* children.  That is not acceptable to me.  Instead, we need to find ways to protect children and determine if the people they are with are family without automatically separating everyone.  I know that this solution isn’t perfect.  But it’s better than separating all children from their families.

4a. I don’t need to assume anything about asylum seekers.  Either they pass their credible fear test and can continue their asylum claim, or they don’t.  If someone doesn’t claim asylum and doesn’t have a visa, then they’ll be denied entry.  

4b. They can if they qualify for a different type of protection. 

5. We want to keep criminals and human traffickers out who are threatening asylum seekers. They don’t qualify for asylum.  That’s why we have a credible fear test and why there is an asylum process.  Claiming asylum isn’t and never has been a free pass.

6. The journey is dangerous.  I wish no one had to make it to get to safety.  I wish their homes were safe.  I don’t assume everyone making the journey made the right choice.  But I also don’t assume I know better than they do.  I would love to see the US do more to make sure no one even wants to make the journey, because their homes are safe.  But asylum seekers have a legal right to claim asylum.

7. See 2 above. Personally, I think the laws on the books are far too harsh and that’s why they’re often not enforced.  We need a more humane system that accounts for the fact that most undocumented people have been in the US for a long time, have US citizen family members, and/or were brought to the US as children.  We need to accept the reality we have and deal with that, not the one we wish we had.  

Amira, how/where do they pass the credible fear test if they haven't entered at a POE? How long does it take to investigate if the claim is credible or not? What do we do in the meantime while they are investigating the test?

Regarding number three, how do we protect the kids while not separating all of them, especially if we're talking a detention or processing facility with other adults as well? You say your solution isn't perfect, but I'm missing or misreading what solution you're proposing.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, it helps me see better where you're coming from.

For your answer to number 7, it looks as if we have procedures for parents who are picked up in ICE raids, and they were followed so that parents could go get their kids?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdms/pr/numerous-previously-detained-aliens-small-children-released-humanitarian-grounds

Also, I'm slightly confused because the people picked up in the raids had been here a long time (so far as I've read in the thread, I don't know first hand), but had not claimed asylum, correct? They were past the one year deadline to do so? So they weren't seeking asylum after entering the US? But they shouldn't be deported because they have been here for so long? But they shouldn't be stopped at entry or apprehended for entering undocumented because they could claim asylum later? And when they don't but stay anyway and establish roots and a community we should let them stay? Is that right?

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Janeway said:

Fine....they are breaking the law, they are criminals. Human beings can be criminals and when those who were detained were either alleged criminals or actual criminals. It is not dehumanizing to call someone who breaks the law a criminal...it is simply accurate.

And when you or someone you know breaks the law by speeding or getting a parking ticket then you and they too are a criminal. I think your strong desire to label others as not like me and mine is to help resolve the immense cognitive dissonance you must feel from hardening your heart, especially as a Christian, to the suffering of fellow human beings.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 8
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

 I would assume it is not like alcoholism, it is something most people could eventually make right and not "be a criminal." But someone who has a crime of habit, would, like how an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, would then be a criminal for life.

 

If being a criminal is temporary and applies only to the point in time at which a crime is committed, why are there criminal records? Why do I have a record for my speeding tickets if I'm not a criminal? Two tickets over 35+ years of driving an average of 20K miles per year certainly doesn't reflect habitual behavior. Yet, there it is.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

The American revolutionaries were criminals - they broke the law.

People who hid Jews or helped them get to safe countries were criminals - they broke the law. 

How can people be so heartless as to just think they deserve such treatment? (now I have an old Three Dog Night song in my head) .

Even if you never received a parking or speeding ticket, surely you know someone who did. Should they be caged? Kept from adequate food, water, and hygiene? Have their children ripped from their arms? After all, they're criminals who committed a misdemeanor.

I think everyone should be treated humanely, which is why I donate to efforts to give people stuff they need at the border and support more govt funding for the massive amounts of people they are processing down there. Facilities should be bigger and better.

I do expect that if I get picked up for a jailable offense, I don't expect it to be pleasant, and I wouldn't expect that my kids could come with me in any case. In a case where I'd be administratively processed over the course of a few days and had to bunk in very tight quarters with many adults I don't know,  (I'm thinking of something like when I went off to basic training or central booking at a jail), I don't think that would be a good place for my kids, so I'd opt for daycare or separate facilities if I could until everything was straightened out. I would be terrified, no doubt, and hate to be separated from them and I can't imagine what they would be feeling. It would break my heart. But I couldn't think that putting them in a room with a bunch of strange adults and only me to protect them would be somehow better.

If I brought my kids with me to do something really dangerous (could possibly kill them) that I knew could possibly end in detention for myself, CPS would take my kids if it was reported or if I was caught. I guess it's heartless that they would do that, even if I was in a desperate situation, but I don't know how we protect kids from parents doing reckless things without some really desperate people getting caught up in that net and kids going to a safer place.

Edited by EmseB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point to keep in mind: none of those responsible for hiring undocumented workers have been charged or arrested, locked in cages, or forcibly detained apart from their families.

So let's talk about breaking the law and the ramifications.  The penalty, if given, is looking to be a fine for the companies involved.  Nothing else.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Frances said:

And when you or someone you know breaks the law by speeding or getting a parking ticket then you and they too are a criminal. I think your strong desire to label others as not like me and mine is to help resolve the immense cognitive dissonance you must feel from hardening your heart, especially as a Christian, to the suffering of fellow human beings.

And not just fellow human beings — fellow Christians. Christian men, women, children, and babies, fleeing violence and poverty, rounded up and caged like animals, left filthy and hungry, while millions of their fellow Christians not only ignore it, but claim they deserve it.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Janeway said:

First time is a misdemeanor, second a felony. https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/illegal-immigration-crime And the additional crimes often committed such as tax evasion can be felonies too.  I have never gotten any sort of parking ticket or that other stuff you listed...but..if I did..I too would be a criminal..breaking a crime. Someone currently in the act of breaking a crime is a criminal. I would assume it is not like alcoholism, it is something most people could eventually make right and not "be a criminal." But someone who has a crime of habit, would, like how an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, would then be a criminal for life.

Good to know.  Then we should have policies that are consistent. So if you ever get a speeding ticket, your children should be seized, placed in cages, given little food or water and no hygiene products, and you should go to detention. At least then this country would be consistent in its application of how it treats criminals. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Amira, how/where do they pass the credible fear test if they haven't entered at a POE? How long does it take to investigate if the claim is credible or not? What do we do in the meantime while they are investigating the test?

Regarding number three, how do we protect the kids while not separating all of them, especially if we're talking a detention or processing facility with other adults as well? You say your solution isn't perfect, but I'm missing or misreading what solution you're proposing.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, it helps me see better where you're coming from.

For your answer to number 7, it looks as if we have procedures for parents who are picked up in ICE raids, and they were followed so that parents could go get their kids?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdms/pr/numerous-previously-detained-aliens-small-children-released-humanitarian-grounds

Also, I'm slightly confused because the people picked up in the raids had been here a long time (so far as I've read in the thread, I don't know first hand), but had not claimed asylum, correct? They were past the one year deadline to do so? So they weren't seeking asylum after entering the US? But they shouldn't be deported because they have been here for so long? But they shouldn't be stopped at entry or apprehended for entering undocumented because they could claim asylum later? And when they don't but stay anyway and establish roots and a community we should let them stay? Is that right?

Wikipedia has a good outline of the credible fear test process:

When a person enters the United States without authorization, United States Customs and Border Protection are, at initial contact, supposed to ask the person whether he or she has a credible fear of returning to his or her home country. If the person responds affirmatively, then the person cannot be immediately deported, but instead the person is referred to an asylum officer for a credible fear interview and issued a Form M-444 Information About Credible Fear Interview. If the person responds negatively, the person may be subject to expedited removal.

A person who has not yet come into contact with immigration enforcement (either because he or she is already present in the United States in lawful status, or because immigration enforcement hasn't yet found the person) may also apply for asylum of his or her own accord (this is sometimes called applying for asylum affirmatively). Such a person does not need to go through a credible fear interview. The credible fear interview is intended only for individuals who have been identified as candidates for deportation.

I can’t get the block quote to work on my device right now, but that’s the end of the quote.  There’s more info here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_fear

My solution is to keep families claiming to be families together while making sure they actually are families.  That solution isn’t perfect because some children would be kept with people who aren’t family.  But the current system assumes all children are being trafficked (even those traveling with their own parents) and separates them.  I can’t see a way to protect all children perfectly in this situation, but I can see the current policy is harming all children.

Thanks for posting the link to the DOJ response.  This issue is entirely separate from asylum (unless someone who was arrested claimed asylum, but it’s unlikely they would qualify because of the one-year rule).  I truly hope the DOJ would follow those procedures and make sure no children lost contact with their parents because of these raids.  But the reporting I’ve read indicates that things didn’t go as smoothly, even though the DOJ had planned this in advance.  I get that mass arrests like these will have some level of chaos, but I think the harm these children suffered, even if it was just a few hours, wasn’t worth the perceived benefit that might have come from these arrests.  I’d much rather that the US government put its energy into finding ways to keep families together instead of arresting people in situations like this.

Yes, I think someone who has been in the US for years, or who has US citizen family members, or who would qualify for DACA should be allowed to stay in the US even if their original entry was undocumented. I know many in the US disagree with me, but I can see little good that comes from those types of deportations and a great deal of harm.  If someone is apprehended while trying to enter the US undocumented and isn’t trying to claim asylum, then I don’t have a major problem with deportation.

I don’t think I missed anything, but let me know if I did.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, EmseB said:

 

I do expect that if I get picked up for a jailable offense, I don't expect it to be pleasant, and I wouldn't expect that my kids could come with me in any case. In a case where I'd be administratively processed over the course of a few days and had to bunk in very tight quarters with many adults I don't know,  (I'm thinking of something like when I went off to basic training or central booking at a jail), I don't think that would be a good place for my kids, so I'd opt for daycare or separate facilities if I could until everything was straightened out. I would be terrified, no doubt, and hate to be separated from them and I can't imagine what they would be feeling. It would break my heart. But I couldn't think that putting them in a room with a bunch of strange adults and only me to protect them would be somehow better.

If I brought my kids with me to do something really dangerous (could possibly kill them) that I knew could possibly end in detention for myself, CPS would take my kids if it was reported or if I was caught. I guess it's heartless that they would do that, even if I was in a desperate situation, but I don't know how we protect kids from parents doing reckless things without some really desperate people getting caught up in that net and kids going to a safer place.

But would you expect to have basic human needs withheld? We have an amendment to our constitution that makes it illegal to administer cruel and unusual punishment. Is being caged, having no medical attention after giving birth (see a post upthread), cruel? Unusual? Would you expect your children to be mistreated for your crime?

I don't know you but I've read your posts on this and other threads and from what I know of you online it doesn't sound like you would be okay with that. Especially not mistreatment of children. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

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...