Does this mean that more people are ending up in internment camps? It reads that way to me.
This section indicates that Sessions has been instructed to fight the 1997 ruling, but it seems to ignore the 2015, and 2016 rulings, which is interesting. Put another way, under current law, the administration cannot do what this order lays out until and unless those rulings are struck down.
Also, what about the children who are currently in the camps? What are the plans to reunite them with their families? We’re talking thousands of children. This is not just happening in the South by the way, although news articles give that impression. There are families impacted here in Oregon. I suspect that there are at other crossings as well.
Finally, what are the plans to make our borders checkpoints available to asylum seekers? Currently, reports are that they are closed. We may choose as a country not to grant asylum (which is another issue), but we should allow people to apply. This is also not addressed. Therefore, we are artificially creating this problem in the first place.
Overall, I conclude that this measure may reduce pressure on Trump in the near term, but is illegal under current US law. I also remain concerned about all of the children already separated from their parents.
First the problem was OMG the children! and now the real objection comes out: Your side does not want to detain illegal immigrants at all.
Would you call a county jail an internment camp? These people are suspected of committing crimes and taken into custody. Because of the whining, their children are taken into custody along with them.
There’s no law that requires someone facing a misdemeanour charge to be held in jail pending trial. Could they not be bailed to immigration detention, where they could stay with their families?
I assume that they arrive at the border with just the clothes on their backs. How would they post even minimal bail? Oh, should they be released on their own recognizance? Let’s see, they have no job, no ties to the community, no family support system, no reliable identification, and the goal of any illegal immigration is to sneak in and fly under the radar: exactly what would happen if they were released on recognizance. A judge applying neutral principles would be crazy to allow it.
Appointed counsel? Why should the taxpayers have to pay for that? These people are here for 4 seconds and already have their hand in the till? In any event, this isn’t my area of expertise, but I do believe that they have access to counsel.
Again, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of these people. What I object to is this implication that they are entitled to assistance from the United States and entitled to gold plated treatment after coming here illegally. As any sovereign nation, we are entitled to deny entry at our borders.
Did you miss the bit where I said “bailed into immigration detention”?
There’s a large middle ground, though, between “entitled to gold plated treatment” and “entitled not to have your children snatched from their families and dumped in camps with other snatched children”. This thread is more about the latter.
more assuming. But not the question I asked. Do they even have that option, assuming, of course, they had the means?
or they might want, you know, to apply for assylum.
something about human rights, maybe?
So for the record, you are against human rights and an expanded tax base? (I don’t know the answer to my question re:legal council either and would love to be deignoranced)
I love hyperbole more than anything that’s ever happened in all of history. But really? Gold plated? We’re talking about the sheer minimum of human rights.
It is as legal as church on Sunday for furriners to seek asylum here by presenting themselves at the border.
You have been corrected on this point numerous times in these threads, so I can no longer attribute this blanket “these people are suspected of committing crimes” as an error resulting from ignorance. You are intentionally repeating an untruth.
Seeing as how gold plating is only 1 micron(0.001 millimeter) thick, I thought you would be o.k. with that miniscule amount of human rights, but apparently even that small amount is too much for you to accept.
Well, that’s what we did before, “catch and release”. The results of catch and release are that people are released into the country without background checks, which is dangerous for us. Then there’s the part that’s dangerous for them:
They are released and given a court date
37% fail to show up to court
They become wanted felons and fugitives
Once caught they face long jail terms and permanent or long term seperation from their families, followed by deportation.
You’ll have to convince me that this is a superior policy.