Actually, not quite accurate, though I’m willing to be shown otherwise. Previously, asylum seekers were briefly held, assigned a court date and case handler for the asylum hearing, and then released. No “zero tolerance”, no separating the children from the parents. But then, the Trump administration has been busy shutting down these programs, so I guess cyclone fencing is the only remaining option?
Asylum seekers are allowed to apply at the border crossing, so what they “should” do has little relevance. But I’m sure they’ll take your advice under consideration.
I don’t disagree with you, XT, but I do think you’re shifting the blame too much. Yes, those are the underlying problems, but that doesn’t mean what Trump is currently doing should be ignored. I do think those things described in the OP are largely correct. It’s just that, they can only happen because of history.
Just because things have been bad in the past doesn’t mean this guy isn’t making it worse. And there still was never any excuse for using the children of attempted immigrants or refugees to try and strongarm his immigration wall. It shows how inhumane the man truly is.
And no, ratios are not what matters. Individuals matter. If it were just one refugee denied on purpose (and it is on purpose if they ignore refugee attempts) then that is horrible.
Trump is not normal. We cannot treat him as normal. Every attempt to move the Overton window must be fought. We cannot pretend that something that would atrocity before is okay because there are other things to fight.
Whoa…I never said what Trump is doing should be ignored. I think he’s running the country into the ground, and I hope to hell all the butt hurt lefties who didn’t get Bernie and couldn’t hold their nose and vote for Clinton are taking note and ready to vote for whoever the Dems run in 2020. I also hope that some of the independents that voted for Trump have seen what a disaster he’s been and do the same. And I hope a lot of the blue collar types who were sure Trump was going to bring back the 50’s and get them all those good, high paying high benefit low skill jobs back are also taking note. Oh, and the traditional economic conservatives are seeing all this anti-free trade stuff going on and thinking wtf???
In short, I don’t want to ignore Trump…I want to see him gone. But the reality is that, wrt immigration, the US has been screwing around on this issue for a long, long time and we need to figure this shit out. As to the OP, as I said, it went from something that was true to pure over the top fantasy that is just scare tactics and horseshit. Trump isn’t going to be able to do any sort of mass revocation of naturalized citizens…and since I am one, if I REALLY thought this was possible I’d be worried. I’m not. Even if one thinks that Trump could just ignore the law and do what he wants, just the logistics of something like that are literally mind boggling. Look at the issues that transpired with the recent immigration fuckup that’s been discussed in this thread. That was something like 2000 families, IIRC. Now consider…every year, over a million people immigrate to the US. That’s a large percentage of many European countries, and that happens every year…year after year. For decades.
An irrelevant question, heading into Not Even Wrong territory.
Show me the statute that says that crossing at any point means your children are to be taken away from you. Show me the statute that says *any *number of asylum seekers being treated this way is acceptable.
If this is a nation of arbitrary authority, then yes, the men with the uniforms & guns can do as they please. But if this is a nation of laws, then there are to be rules. Trump says this was the Democrats’ law? Fine. Prove it.
I would bold the part that is relevant, but I can’t seem to do that anymore. It’s the part about ‘felony conviction/incarceration’ though. And I see similar things for other states…this was just the easiest to cut and paste from. I don’t know if this is a ‘statute’ or whatever…maybe Bricker or one of the other 'doper lawyers can weigh in on that. It seems by making it a felony it puts the action of taking the kids into motion. It’s something that previous administrations danced around.
Except that’s not what’s been happening. What’s been happening is that politicians have repeatedly chosen to deal with it in counterproductive ways: quotas, barriers, criminalization–all of this is like picking at a scab with the jaws of a rabid wolf.
All we had to do was abolish immigration quotas and set up a system for orientation and integration of guest workers.
When someone commits a felony, they run the risk of being incarcerated. That doesn’t generally mean their children are relocated, let alone to 1) a secret location in 2) another state 3) thousands of miles away, as apparently happened here.
Further, asylum seekers in particular aren’t breaking the law. Sessions is breaking the law by treating them as “illegals.”
Anyway, my point in using the word was, that’s how the Trump Administration policymakers see them (and probably you and your family, however many generations you’ve been Americans): an undifferentiated mass of brown people who are flowing over our borders and are thusly a threat to the whiteness of America. They’re a brown tide that must be reversed in order to make America great again, before we wind up with (gasp!) taco trucks on every corner.
…the OP of this thread isn’t really just about immigration.
Its about how authoritarianism creeps up on you. In a way that is crystal clear in hindsight. Is crystal clear to an outside observer. But if you are in the middle of it all you just can’t see it.
And its scary how you, one of the smarter members of the dope, just can’t see it.
The percentage of people in detention who are genuine “asylum seekers” doesn’t really matter. If anyone could give a general idea of that percentage it would be Eva. But fundamentally it doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t it matter?
Because whenever they started to “fudge” the numbers it wasn’t just a month ago. It probably wasn’t even a year ago. We are hearing stories that many people have been turned away from the legal points of entry, forcing them to cross the border where they shouldn’t. Those people don’t technically get classified as asylum seekers because they “didn’t follow the protocol.” Should they have played by the rules? They would have if they could. But were they seeking asylum? Of course they were.
So even if we had the numbers I wouldn’t trust the numbers. Because your system is breaking down. Oversight is disappearing. The people on the ground are “setting policy” and the administration are just going along with it. Yeah, your immigration system has always sucked, but to pretend this is just a little bit worse than the old system is honesty really naive. This is ethnic and religious cleansing. Its being driven by zealots like Stephen Miller and enthusiastically propagated by the people with the boots on the ground. The normal “chains of command” don’t apply.
Um, we already did this, see post #53. I was responding to HD’s attempt back at post #9 to use “which side got more votes?” as a trump card. But thanks for the backup on this point.
Nope; doesn’t work that way. He is purporting to exercise government authority; therefore, the burden is entirely on him to show legal authorization for his actions. If the law is silent, he doesn’t get to do it as a state agent.
The differences between felons in the U.S. and treating illegal entrants at the border as felons are manifold. Notably, (a) well over 90% of persons incarcerated for crimes committed in the U.S. are men; children not raised in two-parent families are overwhelmingly raised by their mothers or by some other female relative. Only a minuscule fraction of children of felons have to be separated from their existing familial arrangements on that account. (b) They’re part of the usual web of relationships, community, extended family. Even if incarceration deprives a child of both parents, or his or her only caretaking parent, there is usually extended family or close family friends in a position to take the child in. (c) In those rare situations where neither (a) nor (b) happens, we have an established foster care system to give the child a substitute home. It’s less than ideal, but it’s a hell of a lot better than being thrown into cages with a bunch of other kids.
In the case of this new policy, ‘being thrown into cages with other kids’ was clearly as much planning as they’d done.
NO. THIS IS FALSE.
Hell, both of the two previous administrations tried to deal with this. Dubya tried to do immigration reform back in 2006, and was sabotaged by the conservatives of his own party. (Much as I hate to give credit to Shrubby for anything, I have to say he at least tried.) And Obama certainly tried - in fact, he succeeded in reducing the net flow of Hispanics into the U.S. from Mexico and points south to zero. He threw a lot of resources into preventing illegal immigration, on the theory that if the Republicans could see that he was serious about securing the border, they’d be willing to come to a deal about immigration reform. (And yes, he got a lot of flak from liberals about this, which got about as much press as stuff liberals do usually gets unless it’s something that Fox News thinks they can make hay over.)
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln…
I’m not exactly going to cut Trump any slack for not being personally involved in the planning, when he hands stuff like this over to Sessions and Stephen Miller, the henchmen in question.
I suppose Nixon would have been this nativist if we’d had as large a Hispanic population in 1969 as we do now. Instead, he bashed blacks and hippies. But it’s hard to see any President between Nixon and Trump who relied this much on hatred of the Other.
[QUOTE]
They aren’t, at least, not compared to any time in the past 30 years.
But it’s one of those facts that, just like the huge drop in crime over the past generation, gets little play, while anti-crime and anti-immigrant messages are widely publicized.
People arriving at ports of entry or detained by ICE in the U.S. and who express a credible fear of returning to their home countries are required by law to be allowed to apply for asylum. [§208.5 Special duties toward aliens in custody of DHS.
(a) General. When an alien in the custody of DHS requests asylum or withholding of removal, or expresses a fear of persecution or harm upon return to his or her country of origin or to agents thereof, DHS shall make available the appropriate application forms and shall provide the applicant with the information required by section 208(d)(4) of the Act, except in the case of an alien who is in custody pending a credible fear determination under 8 CFR 208.30 or a reasonable fear determination pursuant to 8 CFR 208.31. Although DHS does not have a duty in the case of an alien who is in custody pending a credible fear or reasonable fear determination under either 8 CFR 208.30 or 8 CFR 208.31, DHS may provide the appropriate forms, upon request. Where possible, expedited consideration shall be given to applications of detained aliens. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, such alien shall not be excluded, deported, or removed before a decision is rendered on his or her asylum application.](eCFR :: 8 CFR Part 208 -- Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal) (bolding added)
“the percentage of cases in which asylum officers found applicants to have a credible fear for their safety dropped from 78 percent in February 2017 to 68 percent in June 2017.”
But the recent “zero tolerance” policy has drastically changed the proportion who are paroled (released from detention) to pursue their asylum cases. From the same cite:
“In March 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsuit challenging the detention practices of five Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field offices: Detroit; El Paso, Texas; Los Angeles; Newark, New Jersey; and Philadelphia. From 2010 to 2013, ICE personnel in those field offices granted parole to asylum seekers who established a credible fear of persecution in roughly 89 percent of cases. According to the lawsuit, however, that figure has dropped to 4 percent since Trump took office.”
Now imagine you are, say, a rural indigenous Guatemalan who barely speaks Spanish and are semi-literate if you’re lucky. You are in jail thousands of miles from anyone who has any knowledge of what happened to you and several hours’ drive from the nearest decent-sized city with lawyers of any kind, and you have no money. If you’re lucky, you can make a brief phone call every few days. How on Earth are you going to present your asylum case in the best possible light with no corroborating evidence?
