Children are being caged because their parents are desperately trying to make a better life for their family, and your response is a partisan gotcha?
I sincerely hope that off the board you’re doing more than you are on the board.
As RTFirefly and others noted; yep Magiver, your statements are grossly illogical. And I didn’t create logic. 
The current issue is less related to sanctuary cities, that existed before the assholes in power decided to separate families at a bigger scale, and more related to the prosecution of larger numbers of immigrants that in a break from previous administrations is hitting a large number of asylum seekers. That and it is related too to the gang issue, but not as the ignorant supporters of the administration are babbling about.
It is related more to the reason that instead of arresting them for crimes in the USA one “solution” has been to deport gang members to countries like El Salvador. Making those gangs now to be scourge in the old country and as a “bonus” make the people attempting the trip to the USA to increase as they prefer to not be killed with their families when they see that their business or livelihoods are threatened.
It should not had been that way, but a lot of violence the people are fleeing took place first because when that deportation of gang members “solution” was implemented, the USA authorities were not communicating much about who they were deporting with the Salvadoran authorities allowing them to regroup in Central America with deadly results.
And now a second reason: nowadays the aid to countries like El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala is grossly insufficient to control, jail or reform the gang members being deported. Becoming a bigger reason for the current “crisis”.
I will have to travel soon to that old country and there is a risk I would be killed or robbed because I will try to liquidate some family assets that are still around so my family can start a business in the USA. It is sad to know that people like Trump are using the ignorance of many to continue to press for solutions that in reality are making things like business less likely, businesses that instead of benefiting the USA (those taxes paid with the money I will hopefully get, will benefit a lot of the ignorant supporters of Trump in their retirement) in the long run are then being ignored and simple minded solutions are applied that in reality benefit mostly Trump and his henchmen.
I have another response.
Here it is:
It seems to me the logical conclusion to your critique of these policies is that the United States may not prohibit immigration of families with children, if they arrive in a group that includes the children and the family is desperately trying to make a better life for their family.
Is that your position?
If it’s not, can you explain what measures you believe the United States can take that would be morally acceptable to meaningfully enforce that immigration law?
As noted, supporters of what asahi said to that poster are not here in this thread.
One should notice though is that indeed the right has attempted their damn-est to equate the gang members with all the immigrants. Showing that indeed what Trump and other supporters have said to then be poppycock, they really do think that that all the ones coming to the USA are ‘Drug dealers, criminals, rapists’, and even the families that are “assumed” to be good people are separated and their rights essentially ignored when asking for asylum.
I’m not saying they tell them to join MS-13 but yes, many can just pick up street kids and take them north.
Remember we are talking about many kids who are already orphans. Not from intact families.
Again, this is the 3rd world we are talking about. A world where little kids spend their day out begging or working for pennies.
I think that, for families coming here seeking asylum, we should put the family into a humane holding center together while their asylum claim is evaluated. Separating parents from their children is being done to intimidate asylum seekers into not trying to come here at all – I’m not claiming that, Sessions is.
I further think that guards on the border should not be (illegally?) preventing asylum seekers from coming onto American soil.
What do we do when there’s a natural disaster and thousands of people are displaced? We find reasonable places to house the families together. I don’t see why asylum seekers would be treated differently – I believe they have the legal right to seek asylum.
For those crossing who are not seeking asylum, I still don’t see why we must separate parents from children – we didn’t to that before. We should have humane detention facilities that can handle whole families, since we know families will be coming over here.
I also don’t understand your logical conclusion in the first part of your response, since this is apparently a new policy, and yet families have been trying to migrate here for decades.
WTF? That’s not what we’re talking about in this thread. This thread is talking about separating immigrant children from their parents, so not obviously not orphans.
That’s two points you’ve tried to make here that seem totally unsupported by facts. Can you start bringing cites?
I was forgetting that there is also another item that Trump conveniently forgot:
Of course that was done when finding sorry reasons why not to allow refugee families from the Middle East because they were Muslim, so that "but we will allow Christians from the ME’ was a fig leaf. Because it seems that nowadays Trump and henchmen do think that Catholics (who are most of the families asking for asylum now) are not Christian according to him and many supporters that use religion to justify their sorry solutions to this issue.
Yes, we get it. They are trying for a better life. We are not inhuman beasts.
We can help a few. But we are talking massive crowds. Where do we house them? How do we provide jobs, healthcare, education, and employment?
WWJD?
Last I heard, the unemployment rate is at historical lows. It is like if the good economical news are ignored when it is convenient.
Your sarcasm is noted, but why not use that energy to articulate a point of discussion relevant to the topic?
You’ve already got a warning for subsequent posts in this thread. This also is inappropriate for this forum. I think the one warning from JC is sufficient here. Save this for the Pit.
[/moderating]
That’s very reasonable. What would be some necessary characteristics of a “humane holding center?”
Do facilities that meet those conditions exist now? What is their capacity? What is the current utilization rate – that is, to what level are they currently occupied?
I as these questions (a) because I don’t know the answers, and (b) I suspect that we don’t have the extant capability in terms of resources to meet the standards I think you’re arguing for. But I may be wrong - can you flesh this out a bit?
I absolutely agree. Similar tactics were used during the forced repatriations of Haitians fleeing the regime during the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations: Haitians whose boats made it to shore were legally permitted to apply for asylum, so the Coast Guard adopted an approach that prioritized stopping the boats before they could reach that line.
I am behind the “follow the law” rubric for both the government and the immigrants. Guards on the border should not hinder legal asylum seekers.
Yes, that’s true. But the previous policy was to use discretion not to enforce the law to its fullest extent.
Thus my question: I’m asking in what ways the United States could, in your view, morally enforce sanctions against would-be illegal immigrants. And I’m suggesting if the answer is, “None,” then you’re arguing that the country has no moral right to prohibit immigration. It appears your answer isn’t, “None,” but I’m not yet clear on the contours of what a moral prohibition looks like.
(emphasis mine)
Briefly, when white folks put over 100,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps*, families were not separated. They were kept together. That would be a good place to start.
- President Roosevelt described them as “concentration camps”, so I will too. You should consider doing the same.
The new Republican talking point- I heard it from 2 different Republicans today on Meet The Press- is that whenever someone goes to jail that person is separated from their kids. See? No biggie.
:smack:
Happy Father’s Day.
To be specific, are you saying that it’s also a good place to end, or does “a good place to start,” suggest you have other conditions that you’re not yet sharing?
Here’s why it’s relevant: in order to claim asylum, you can’t just say, “crime”. That’s something you don’t need to leave your whole country to get away from. But if they are being specifically targeted by gangs, that’s a legit asylum claim. Except that MS-13, while not nearly as dangerous or powerful as Trump would like us to believe, is powerful enough to get specific people if they know their whereabouts.
Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor. Are you suggesting that people should not be taken into custody for any misdemeanors?
Good question. Let me play: Are you suggesting that they should?