They’re being detained until their court case can be resolved, and presumably if guilty any sentence completed. If they’re illegal, at that point they’ll probably be deported. That’s not “indefinitely”.
No worse than Willie Nelson:
…would you care to share with us the exact length the process you describe will take? Two weeks? Two months? Two years?
Your cite has another definition for “indefinitely”: “unlimited”. That’s what I understood RTFirefly to mean and what I was objecting to. If instead he merely meant that we don’t know
“the exact length the process”, then consider my objection withdrawn. We don’t, and that’s no more of a concern for me than my not knowing “the exact length of the process” when I get pulled over for speeding. It could be ten minutes, or twelve, or six. It won’t be forever.
You’ve got a grand total of three out of the 100 countries that you offered as a majority(out of 195 total) so far. I said I had all day, but it’s becoming rather obvious that your claim that “In most of the world’s borders, they will shoot you if they catch you trying to cross and you don’t halt when ordered” isn’t backed up by the facts.
Trump twittered this morning that the Republicans should put discussion about immigration on hold until after the November elections. If this happens then far too many children are going to be lost in the system.
I, for one, am shocked. I thought for sure there would be a list of countries provided when I woke up this morning. It’s almost like that was a made up fact used to try to make an incorrect point.
…of course it does. Words have multiple meaning. To determine the meaning, we examine the context.
I think we do.
There is an order of magnitude of difference between “six-and-twenty minutes” and “a week and two years.” Its disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I’m not following you. Is “I think we do” in reference to knowing “the exact length of the process”? Are you arguing that their detentions are not “indefinite” because we (well, you anyways), know “the exact length of the process”?
I guess it’s a good thing I’m not pretending otherwise, right?
…we do know what RTFirefly meant.
It appears that you are. Not knowing if you are going to be detained for a week or two years or longer fits the definition of indefinitely detained. It is in no way comparable to a wait of between six and twenty minutes. So yes, you are pretending otherwise.
HD, this has got to be some of the most ridiculous wordgaming I’ve ever seen. These people might be detained for weeks, or it might be years. In any individual case, who the hell knows?
Now, would something like that happen to you if you crossed the Canadian border illegally and were discovered? If so, that’s what I’m asking for a cite for.
Oh, and for those who still insist that there’s a rough equivalence between what happens to these detainees and their children, and what happens to criminals with children here in the U.S.:
Link. (WaPo.)
This is akin to civil forfeiture of children.
In the case of civil asset forfeiture, the person forfeiting assets is usually not charged with a crime (at least in the cases that seem to be generating the most outrage over the process). In the cases of illegal border crossings, they are being charged with a crime. That seems like enough of a difference that I wouldn’t agree that the one is “akin” to the other.
What crime have they all been formally charged with?
Is that what you meant by “indefinite detention”? That we don’t know “the exact length of the process”?
You’re asking me for a cite about Canadian immigration policy? Why? I didn’t make any claim about Canada.
Weeks, years, potato, pohtato, huh? :mad:
In post #180, my point was that the indefinite detention that these folks are experiencing is quite different from what would happen if one went into Canada illegally.
You’re welcome to argue to the contrary. (In which case, yes, I’m asking for a cite.) But if you’re going to snipe about the meaning of ‘indefinitely’ without any particular argumentative purpose other than an extremely poor-quality attempt at sophistry, then I’m not going to engage with you any further.
I think it’s 8 U.S.C. § 1325, but I don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of every single immigration case in the country to know, what, or if, they have “all been formally charged with”.
So: the charges have been dismissed against these parents, but there’s still no procedure for their getting their kids back. Yeah, it sounds quite like civil child forfeiture.
First:
And then:
Seems weird to definitively state that people are being charged with a crime, and then fail to know which crime, or if they are even being charged with it.