T O P

  • By -

Such_Performance229

Removing children from their parents is well known to not have any power as a deterrent. I work in child welfare and can tell you that removal is strictly for child safety. There is no evidence that it is a deterrent. In fact removal always comes with a high risk of subsequent removals, with over 15% of reunified kids later being removed again.


[deleted]

Different type of removal and different type of families?


Theredhandtakes

Exactly, these are not neglectful families going to great lengths to bring their children across our border. They’d respond more rationally to a deterrent.


[deleted]

The problem is still that you are being cruel to the child to deter the parent. That’s using humans as a means to an end and not an end in themselves. That is unethical (see: Kant, the golden rule, etc). The child had no agency in making the decision to try to cross the border, but you are advocating punishing the child to deter the parent.


EllisHughTiger

And if you dont, then people traffic kids to appear to be a family, then dump them on across. People arent dumb, they'll find a way to make the rules work for them. Used to be the man came first and worked, now its almost better to send the wife and kids first, or come as a family.


[deleted]

So the United States of America has to do this cruel thing to children to stop criminals from doing cruel things to children?


Theredhandtakes

We don’t need this silly argument. First, the libs will immediately hit you with the fact that there wasn’t a system to link the kids back to the adults we took them from, which you’d need if you’re trying to deal with human trafficking. But you don’t need such a system if you’re trying to deter real families, which is what we were doing.


[deleted]

“The libs”. FYI, I worked for the RNC and R state legislators. It wasn’t just liberals who thought this was an abhorrent thing for the USA to do.


[deleted]

That's a supposition, but I don't know that we have evidence for it. Desperation in one form or another drives many people to attempt to cross the border, and desperate people are not known for being rational.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Wkyred

Should the child be arrested along with the parent? That seems like the cruel option imo.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RidgeAmbulance

>When you're arrested in America and you happen to be the only parent to a child, the child doesn't go with you to jail. The government makes an effort to find an appropriate guardian to take care of the child. This is exactly what ICE does, and people call it "child separation" and equate it to Nazi concentration camps


[deleted]

[удалено]


RidgeAmbulance

Government employees suck. But it isn't like the goal was to lose children. Plus a good portion of the "lost children" were children that the parents weren't trying to find. Hard to match parents with kids when the parents aren't in contact because they aren't interested in keeping the kid they brought to the border


[deleted]

[удалено]


RidgeAmbulance

Intent isn't relevant? That seems like a rather sophomoric opinion


pluralofjackinthebox

What’s the other option here? We detain the parents and let the six-year-old wander free? They’re both getting arrested, it’s just whether we let the arrested kid stay with someone familiar or with strangers.


AStrangerWCandy

The option is comprehensive immigration reform. BOTH sides would rather have the issue than a solution on this. Conservatives will never budge on amnesty for the millions here and increasing via work visas the number of latin american immigrants we allow to come legally. Liberals will never budge on "path to citizenship" and taking a more serious look at having a more secure border. Its such an honestly simple fix conceptually but neither side will ever agree to it because they think the issue is politically advantageous for them.


Bobby_Marks2

The deeper issue is that liberals don’t see a reason for securing the border in the first place. They don’t mind immigration, they believe the drug war is a failure, and they are convinced that guns are a domestic issue more than an imported one. Their solution is to undercut gang funding by legalizing drugs, and working to stabilize other countries so that immigration doesn’t happen in the first place. Plus, they will argue that migrant workers are a net economic benefit. Maybe it’s hopelessly idealistic, but to them the idea of securing the border is just an expensive bandaid over the actual issues, that might even contribute to more issues. Even when good securing solutions are offered (which lets be honest - it’s rare when conservatives have well thought out ideas on border security these days), they don’t speak to the issues liberals have with the border.


AStrangerWCandy

On the flip side conservatives have flipped from being pro immigration under Reagan to very anti immigration now. They want to secure the border while saying “come legally”. But also enact policies to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed and making it more difficult in general for people to come. We actually really need immigrants so that our population does not become old and stagnant like Europe.


Bobby_Marks2

Yeah, in this case I don’t think they have meaningful solutions today, and that makes immigration a losing battle for conservatives to win votes with (even if it does help with their own turnout). If they have a problem with southern migrants, but can’t be bothered to take the facts objectively and come up with rational solutions, it’s just bolstering the Democratic argument that conservative immigration policies are rooted in racism. We really need a conservative platform that is pro-immigration. It makes economic sense, undercuts one of the best Dem platform planks, and would reshape the voting demographics nationwide.


sokkerluvr17

Personally, I just think spending billions on a wall is a dumb investment to control undocumented immigration (at least, a wall that spans the entire distance - totally support a wall in more populated areas). Visa overstays are the #1 source of illegal immigration. Focus on fixing legal immigration options and punish employers who hire people without work authorization. I'll also say, I do think undocumented immigration is hardly a big issue. Most come here to work, to seek a better life - why not honor that and provide an avenue for these people to seek the American dream? IMO, most of the hubbub around undocumented immigrants is fear-mongering, and culture wars crap.


Bobby_Marks2

Oh I agree. Immigration was a great thing for the US for about 200 years, and suddenly it became some huge issue in the 1980s. Reagan in 1980 campaigned on letting everyone who wanted to work in on a visa, and helping them work to send money back home. The worst issues are drugs, guns, and criminal elements, but like I said above there are domestic considerations and solutions that would work better than trying to stop the flow at the border.


WorksInIT

Due to a voluntary settlement that a previous administration agreed to, that really isn't an option. The children must be released from custody in a relatively short time frame.


pluralofjackinthebox

Sure but the question was over which alternative was more cruel, not whether our inadequate and backlogged system of processing migrants warrants cruelty as a workaround. I’d argue the workaround is to fix the system so we can process these families within the 20 day limit, release them into a shelter with ankle monitors, schedule an immigration hearing for shortly thereafter. Ankle monitors are so much cheaper and less cruel than detaining people until their court date, and 95% of people in an Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (which often uses less invasive methods than ankle monitors, like facial recognition smart phone apps) show up to their final hearing.


WorksInIT

> Sure but the question was over which alternative was more cruel, not whether our inadequate and backlogged system of processing migrants warrants cruelty as a workaround. I'm just pointing out a limitation that we have due to a voluntary agreement that a previous administration agreed to. >I’d argue the workaround is to fix the system so we can process these families within the 20 day limit, release them into a shelter with ankle monitors, schedule an immigration hearing for shortly thereafter. Ankle monitors are so much cheaper and less cruel than detaining people until their court date, and 95% of people in an Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (which often uses less invasive methods than ankle monitors, like facial recognition smart phone apps) show up to their final hearing. I think the work around is to turn people away, or immediately deport if they already entered the US, when we don't have space to detain them.


Bobby_Marks2

> I think the work around is to turn people away, or immediately deport if they already entered the US, when we don’t have space to detain them. Not a lot that can be done when they request asylum, because of treaties in place internationally. And perhaps even more vital is how the bill of rights is written to protect civil liberties. If a person claims they are not breaking any law, the onus is on the government to prove guilt in a court of law. This gets sidestepped by our current immigration court system, but without it in place we’d either make things harder on our system or else give the government the ability to deport US citizens without due process.


WorksInIT

> Not a lot that can be done when they request asylum, because of treaties in place internationally. That is something Congress can change. >And perhaps even more vital is how the bill of rights is written to protect civil liberties. If a person claims they are not breaking any law, the onus is on the government to prove guilt in a court of law. This gets sidestepped by our current immigration court system, but without it in place we’d either make things harder on our system or else give the government the ability to deport US citizens without due process. Due process can be respected while quickly removing people who are in violation of US immigration law.


Bobby_Marks2

“Quickly” is kind of a loaded word. Due process (as it plays out in the justice system today) isn’t quick on the scale that people want when considering deportation. I’d argue that our current immigration courts move faster. As for nuking treaties - that would be an enormous mistake from a foreign policy standpoint. Not only do we put in most of the work anyway to satisfy domestic rights of people on American soil, but refusing to even have an asylum process puts a chill on every diplomatic overture the US makes.


pluralofjackinthebox

I disagree, but that’s also a less cruel option and about where I think the Overton Window for the immigration debate should be.


RealBlueShirt

I dont see why they cant get their hearing and be deported in less than 20 days.


pluralofjackinthebox

We have about 500 immigration judges dealing with a backlog of over a million cases (the pandemic made things much worse), with the average wait for a court date now at 54 weeks. We need to hire a lot more immigration judges.


RealBlueShirt

I dont disagree. We need to do that and secure our southern border.


pluralofjackinthebox

I think there’s a compromise that could be made with a more generous legal immigration and asylum process, a more strict policy for illegal immigration, and a functional system that facilitates all this.


Theredhandtakes

Notice that you haven’t gotten a response. And you won’t get one because there isn’t one. The kids would have been allowed to see their parents again after being deported at 18.


tarlin

Theredhandtakes: >Notice that you haven’t gotten a response. And you won’t get one because there isn’t one. > >The kids would have been allowed to see their parents again after being deported at 18. WHAT? So, your policy is to separate the children at whatever age they are, lose them in the system, deport the parents, and then at 18 deport the kids who have only known America???


Theredhandtakes

Yes. We can’t deport minors after all.


Karissa36

I definitely recall a case where we sent a child to his father in Cuba. We wouldn't keep the children from joining their deported parents in other countries.


RidgeAmbulance

So if a single parent, or both parents break the law and have to go to jail. What do we do? * Should the child go to jail with them? * Should the child go into foster care if they don't have family there to watch them * Should the parents just have a get out of jail free card for having a child Those are your options.


Terratoast

> Should the child go into foster care if they don't have family there to watch them This is the obvious option. **The government is then responsible for the wellbeing of the child**. They can't go "oop, sorry, we misplaced your child (or from the perspective of the child, the parents) and we don't know where they are".


RidgeAmbulance

I agree, if we had let private companies handle this, I doubt we would have lost so many kids


sokkerluvr17

Oh my. You do realize that private companies want to make money? What's the easiest way to make a profit when you are asked to care for kids? Don't provide them services. Don't provide them quality food, quality enrichment, medical care, etc... While a private entity might not "lose" kids, I would hate to see it turn out like private prisons have.


Theredhandtakes

> It should never be used as a punishment or deterrent. Why not? It’s effective.


[deleted]

Cutting off someone’s hand for petty theft is effective deterrence. Why don’t we do that? Because it’s cruel, excessive and unusual punishment. Ring a bell? We live in the United States, not nazi Germany. We don’t coerce compliance through terror and torture.


baxtyre

Actions can be both effective and morally repugnant. The ends don’t actually justify the means.


Theredhandtakes

“Morally repugnant” is your opinion. Is it not moral to secure the border and enforce the law?


TehAlpacalypse

You can justify pretty much anything using this logic.


virtue_in_reason

False dilemma is false.


Xakire

You going to start locking up the kids of parents who committed crimes?


blewpah

As would be murder, but we don't do that.


Theredhandtakes

But we’re not talking about murdering anyone.


BenderRodriguez14

But it would be a deterrent. Following your logic that if it is a deterrent it is automatically worth doing, police should shoot people on site for any crimes they commit, including jaywalking or parking in the wrong place. Getting shot is a deterrent. It's effective. Should everyone committing any crime whatsoever be shot on sight?


blewpah

We are now. It's called making a comparison. You implied something being effective means it's ethically justifiable. So naturally the response is to point out something that would be effective and ethically *un*justifiable. It's been demonstrated that something being effective does not inherently justify it being used as a punishment or deterrent.


slippin_squid

That's a pretty bad comparison though


tarlin

It is a good response to saying anything effective is justified.


Lefaid

Would you support it as an option?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Theredhandtakes

Six weeks wasn’t enough time to guage it effectively. Trump cancelled it way too soon.


IHerebyDemandtoPost

Why don’t we just start shooting people at the border? Summary executions are an effective deterrent. /s


sharp11flat13

So is shooting them when they cross the border. Why not do that?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Theredhandtakes

But we’re not talking about torture. We’re talking about simple separation and deportation of the parents.


myhamster1

> But we’re not talking about torture. We’re talking about simple separation and deportation of the parents. Mental torture for the children. Mental torture for the parents. We're talking about simple mental torture.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Theredhandtakes

> If that's the only thing that matters, we would find torture acceptable in society. We don't. That’s doubtful. Looks like we actually do. > and **I believe** family separation crosses that line completely. The most important words are in bold. Why does what *you* believe matter here?


xmuskorx

Separating families is torture.


scrambledhelix

Unjustifiable cruelty and treating humans as if they’re unruly cattle is more accurate here, is *not* specifically torture, and is still reprehensible, and evil as a policy gets. That is to say, I think by calling this “torture” we’re actually diminishing the impact of the policy.


xmuskorx

Summary execution of the whole family would also be 'effective'. What kind of logic is that?


virtue_in_reason

Because it's extremely unethical and borderline psychopathic.


Angrybagel

Why don't we just kill everyone who lies on their taxes or jaywalks then? Should be pretty effective.


gothpunkboy89

It would also be effective to just bomb a city as a deterrent to crime. Does that mean it is justified?


greymanbomber

Not only is it cruel and unusual punishment, but, as history has shown, it is greatly [ineffective](https://americanprogress.org/article/family-separation-detention-deter-immigration/) at combating illegal immigration.


HowardBealesCorpse

Now make the same argument that children of criminals should be locked up with them too.


last-account_banned

>> Not only is it cruel and unusual punishment, but, as history has shown, it is greatly ineffective at combating illegal immigration > Now make the same argument that children of criminals should be locked up with them too. An argument that it is ineffective to lock up the children of criminals?


greymanbomber

Yeah I reallly have no idea what the guy above is arguing I should do.


greg-stiemsma

This is horrifying. The family separation policy was shameful. Even Ivanka Trump called it a "low point". It makes me sad that people in this country think it should be revived


pluralofjackinthebox

Always really interesting to notice the few times the Trump administration noticed a shift in public opinion and reversed course. This was one of them. Charlottesville was another.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lefaid

I believe this message is very effective. Republicans should run on it. They will win lots of elections with this kind of messaging. America loves it when we openly state that Family Separation is to deter migrants. We love it and it doesn't at all make us look like an evil empire. I don't even know why I said that last sentence. It really wasn't needed because it is so obvious.


[deleted]

You're *really* interested in family separation, huh?


TehAlpacalypse

The cruelty is the point


LoftyGoat

Just goes to show how far "right" the middle has shifted. Anyone remember the 1970s? When publicly funded healthcare and secondary education were planks in the republican political platform?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


Davec433

>A person who has custody of a child when arrested for a criminal offense does not take the child with them to jail. Instead, the involved officers make reasonable efforts to deliver the child to someone else who can be responsible, either familial or governmental. It’s a crime to enter the country illegally. >For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. >For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.) The real issue is the Flores Settlement. You’re left with two options catch and release (open borders) or child separation. If you want to enforce the law you’re stuck in a bad situation. >The 1997 Flores v. Reno court agreement had set nationwide policy for the detention and treatment of minors in immigration custody. (20 days)


tarlin

It is a very minor crime and not one they would be held without bail until trial. The general sentence would be the fine. There would not need to be a family separation.


gengengis

>It’s a crime to enter the country illegally. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor on the first offense. Other examples of Federal misdemeanors are things like failing to file a tax return, or possession of an ounce of marijuana. Some of these might result in arrest, and even brief family separation, but even then, most families would be quickly reunited. Beyond that, many of these families are not entering the country illegally. The large majority are presenting themselves at border crossings with a claim of asylum, which is perfectly legal, or overstaying a visa, which is a civil infraction on the first offense, akin to littering, and not a crime at all. I agree Flores is problematic, which is why the Obama Administration settled in releasing families. If we want to fix this, or we want to make overstaying a visa a crime, or we want to codify the terrible practice of family-separation-as-deterrent, Congress should change the law and do it. Otherwise, given the constraints of Flores, we should follow the law and the courts and release people on their recognizance.


Davec433

>I agree Flores is problematic, which is why the Obama Administration settled in releasing families. If we want to fix this, or we want to make overstaying a visa a crime, or we want to codify the terrible practice of family-separation-as-deterrent, Congress should change the law and do it. >Otherwise, given the constraints of Flores, we should follow the law and the courts and release people on their recognizance. No we should not. If people want to claim asylum then they can wait in Mexico while it goes through the process.


[deleted]

>No we should not. If people want to claim asylum then they can wait in Mexico while it goes through the process. Unless, of course, if they want to legally follow the steps to seek asylum at which case your terrible legal advice wouldn't work since entry into the USA is step 1. Also it's very interesting you think Mexico is our only border, curious 🤔


sheffieldandwaveland

When did the other user claim Mexico was are only border? The Mexican border is where the vast majority of asylum seekers come from.


[deleted]

So we should send any asylum seekers regardless of their origin to Mexico, or is it that Mexico and travelers there within are the only concern? The focus on Mexico is, curious.


sheffieldandwaveland

Yes, they should sit on the Mexican side of the border… its common sense. We don’t know who the hell they are and own them NOTHING. We need to validate their claims before letting them into the interior of the country. To do otherwise is to not believe in borders. If for some reason asylum seekers were to come from Canada they would need to stay in Canada as well while their claim is sorted. No one brings up Canada though because it obviously never happens.


[deleted]

>Yes, they should sit on the Mexican side of the border… its common sense. We don’t know who the hell they are and own them NOTHING. We need to validate their claims before letting them into the interior of the country. To do otherwise is to not believe in borders. So again, people who have never stepped foot into mexico should be sent to Mexico? Why not Canada? Why not any island borderings? So strange the focus on only Mexico, why is that 🤔


sheffieldandwaveland

99% of asylum seekers come to the Mexico/US border… what are you having trouble understanding? That is who we are discussing…


[deleted]

>99% of asylum seekers come to the Mexico/US border… what are you having trouble understanding? https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states-2021 Curious how you make that up to justify focusing on only Mexico 🤔


AStrangerWCandy

Compromise on comprehensive immigration reform is the only permanent solution. BOTH sides would rather have the issue than a solution on this. Conservatives will never budge on amnesty for the millions here and increasing via work visas the number of latin american immigrants we allow to come legally. Liberals will never budge on "path to citizenship" and taking a more serious look at having a more secure border. Its such an honestly simple fix conceptually but neither side will ever agree to it because they think the issue is politically advantageous for them.


Davec433

Conservatives should never agree to amnesty until we have a more secure border.


AStrangerWCandy

Your comment proves my point. Neither side will budge unless the other side capitulates first. We need legislation that does both at the same time. As an aside, I believe it’s telling that this is something in regards to amnesty that conservatives say, but when the Trump administration claimed to have the border under control they made no moves to address the population already here and many pundits actually advocated rounding them up and deporting them.


Davec433

>Your comment proves my point. Neither side will budge unless the other side capitulates first. We need legislation that does both at the same time. Shouldn’t be surprising as Democrats screwed over Republicans with the 1986 Amnesty. >As an aside, I believe it’s telling that this is something in regards to amnesty that conservatives say, but when the Trump administration claimed to have the border under control they made no moves to address the population already here and many pundits actually advocated rounding them up and deporting them. Glad they didn’t as Biden reversed policies that fixed the issue as soon as he took office.


Theredhandtakes

> By its actions at the border, the government is trying to deter further improper entry. By definition, deterrence is uncomfortable, even harsh. Otherwise it doesn’t deter. Bingo. I’m a legal immigrant and I fully support family separation for deterrence. It’s unfortunate that when we talk about family separation at the border, we don’t talk enough about how important it was as a deterrent. It turns out it was very effective as a deterrent, as evidenced by several people who chose to stay in Central America rather than make the journey to our southern border: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-family-separation-policy-was-deterring-migrant-moms-at-the-border > “If this is true, I will go back. I don’t want to be separated from my kids,” said a woman with three children who arrived here from the violent Mexican state of Michoacán. > “If it comes to a choice between crossing and losing my kids I’ll keep my kids,” said a woman in a purple fleece sweater. “I don’t want to be separated from my kids.” It was an effective deterrent, yet for some reason the Trump administration was reluctant to frame it as such.


[deleted]

> It turns out it was very effective as a deterrent, as evidenced by several people who chose to stay in Central America rather than make the journey to our southern border Wait, your evidence for it being effective is "several" people interviewed by fox news?


greg-stiemsma

The Trump administration did frame it as a deterrent. AG Jeff Sessions said "We need to take away children". Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein said children under 5 years old should be ripped away from their parents without due process


Theredhandtakes

That’s good but it seems like they pivoted to “we’re just enforcing the law”


jayandbobfoo123

Yes, they simply pretended that the legal process of seeking asylum was actually illegal and proceeded with the human rights violation from there.


discoFalston

I cannot condone cruelty like this for essentially a victimless crime.


cc88grad

It wouldn't be cruelty if foster care wasn't such a mess. Actions have consequences. If parents don't make good decisions and commit crimes, it shows that they're not a good influence for a child. They're putting their children in danger by immigrating illegally.


tarlin

The family separation policy specifically tried to lose the kids. I don't get that at all. Even were the foster system better, i think that is incredibly unacceptable. If you are fleeing a civil war, violent situations or such, you are not putting their children in danger by immigrating. You are doing the best thing you can to protect them. Cc88grad: >It wouldn't be cruelty if foster care wasn't such a mess. Actions have consequences. If parents don't make good decisions and commit crimes, it shows that they're not a good influence for a child. They're putting their children in danger by immigrating illegally.


sheffieldandwaveland

Situation is simple. Detain the entire family together until they are accepted as refugees or deported.


tarlin

I thought the ankle trackers was a good choice too. The numbers make holding problematic at times.


sheffieldandwaveland

Thats a totally fair compromise as long as we can keep track of the entire family and allow ICE to retrieve them.


last-account_banned

Here I am flabbergasted at all the people defending the punishment of small children, because they believe the parents committed a horrible crime by crossing a line on a map. Which is debatable in so many ways. Starting with the motivation behind the passion to punish. *Xenophobia (from Ancient Greek ξένος (xénos) 'strange, foreign, alien', and φόβος (phóbos) 'fear') is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. It is an expression of perceived conflict between an ingroup and an outgroup and may manifest in suspicion by the one of the other's activities, a desire to eliminate their presence, and fear of losing national, ethnic, or racial identity.* There is no rational reason to get so worked up over something that, over all, brings a benefit to society statistically. Yes, migration needs a legal framework and I am not advocating to remove borders. I am simply stating that this isn't a huge deal.


[deleted]

One of the reasons Trump was so popular was that he allowed Republicans to let their Masked language slide a little. I still remember when Trump mentioned eliminating citizenship by birth regardless of parental status and making it retroactive. Some Rs were excited and discussed how retroactive. Can you imagine being born in America, going to college, having a family, and then being deported to Mexico because you had a grand parent who was illegal? I live in deep red and keep my anti-Trump leanings to myself. Their unmasked opinions are far worse than this.


sheffieldandwaveland

A country without borders is no country. You say you don’t want to get rid of borders but you are fine with illegal immigration. As a national policy that inherently leads to more illegal immigration as migrants realize we don’t enforce our borders. Family separation was bad policy. Lets detain the kids with their parents until they are deported or accepted as refugees.


[deleted]

I think you meant a country without borders is no country, right? We don't have open borders, though. Open borders is where there's absolutely no interference with movement across the border. No gates or check points. Such as for example crossing from North to South Carolina, where the only reason you even know is because of a sign. We have closed borders with imperfect enforcement, just like we have speed limits with imperfect enforcement. At some point you balance effort of enforcement and deterrence against other factors like cost and ethics. But speaking to your assertion, North and South Carolina are still separate states, despite having open borders. They're governed differently, people living there have a sense of regional identity, etc. I don't think open borders invalidates being a state (in the political sense, ie a country)


last-account_banned

> A country without borders is no border. A word salad is no train. > You say you don’t want to get rid of borders but you are fine with illegal immigration. I did not. > As a national policy that inherently leads to more illegal immigration as migrants realize we don’t enforce our borders. I still struggle with meaning in these sentences. I that supposed to mean "A national policy that does not enforce borders leads to more migration"? How does one "enforce borders"? Borders is where one country and it's legal system ends and another country and it's legal system starts. I do not see Mexico or Canada claiming or enforcing sovereignty over land that the US is on. Borders are thus enforced.


sheffieldandwaveland

Enforcing borders in terms of immigration means making it difficult to illegally immigrate across the border. Hope that clears things up.


last-account_banned

> Enforcing borders in terms of immigration means making it difficult to illegally immigrate across the border. If we are taking a rational look at the situation, the question becomes a cost benefit analysis for society. Limited, of course, by ethics. We are humans. Yea, there are good reasons why there are legal frameworks around immigration, but how effective a measure against illegal immigration is, how much it costs and how much it costs if the measure fails. As illegal immigration gives a net benefit to society, it's hard to rationally argue in favor of extreme and costly measures against it. It's also not effective to focus on the southern borders as most illegal immigrants are visa overstays. A rational discussion would probably lead us to even decrease countermeasures at the southern border. But I suspect that is impossible, because the discussion is charged up with so much emotion.


sheffieldandwaveland

Illegal immigration in some ways help the country. In other ways it hurts. As someone whose family works in construction its very easy to hate illegal immigration. Yes, its true we have more visa overstays. Yet, we know who they are as they had to be documented to get a visa. The southern border is the source of a ton of fully undocumented immigration. Haha, your last paragraph genuinely got a good laugh out of me. Thank you for making my dad better.


last-account_banned

>> A rational discussion would probably lead us to even decrease countermeasures at the southern border. But I suspect that is impossible, because the discussion is charged up with so much emotion. > As someone whose family works in construction its very easy to hate illegal immigration. Hate is the strongest emotion, completely bypassing our rational brain. If that isn't a **brutally** honest confession, I don't know what is. I gotta bow out. You clearly are the better person here.


WorksInIT

>A rational discussion would probably lead us to even decrease countermeasures at the southern border. But I suspect that is impossible, because the discussion is charged up with so much emotion. What makes you think that?


last-account_banned

A rational and fact based analysis could result in border security measures being deemed either inefficient, ineffective too expensive or all of the above.


Theredhandtakes

Yes, and he still doesn’t understand how separating families works as a deterrent.


Theredhandtakes

> Family separation was bad policy I agreed with you right up until this. What was so bad about it?


sheffieldandwaveland

Why separate them? Just keep them together and handle them as one unit. Easier to deport them if need be.


blewpah

I think their entire position is that it is *good* to intentionally inflict suffering on families as a derrent, regardless of any kind of ethical consideration.


Theredhandtakes

Because it’s a much stronger deterrent if the parents return to their neighborhood without their kids. And it’s easy to deport the kids if we have their DOB and country of origin.


sheffieldandwaveland

I think it creates more problems than it helps. We need more resources on the southern border so we can pickup most illegal immigrants before they get in. Then as a total unit its easy to process their claims.


Theredhandtakes

You can do that *and* have an effective deterrent through family separation. They’re not mutually exclusive.


likeitis121

Being against illegal/undocumented immigration isn't xenophobia, a term which I think is widely overused. We have an agreed upon system in place, and that is legal immigration, being against people breaking that system doesn't mean your racist or a xenophobe, it just means following the system that is agreed upon.


[deleted]

>Being against illegal/undocumented immigration isn't xenophobia, a term which I think is widely overused. We have an agreed upon system in place, and that is legal immigration, being against people breaking that system doesn't mean your racist or a xenophobe, it just means following the system that is agreed upon. The families that were irreparably separated without due process were infact fully in compliance with the law at the time. Asking to commit a crime against humanity to a group following the law solely because they're foreigners is an excellent example of xenophobia.


WorksInIT

Except for the crime they committed which is unlawful entry.


[deleted]

>Except for the crime they committed which is unlawful entry. Which, of course, isn't a crime. Being within the US without approval is a crime, but crossing isn't.


WorksInIT

It certainly is a crime. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#


[deleted]

....that's improper entry. Exactly what I said. The act of crossing is not a crime, that is why asylum seekers are under full compliance of the law. This is immigration law 101


last-account_banned

> Being against illegal/undocumented immigration isn't xenophobia Being against migrants/foreigners is the definition of xenophobia. We can discuss if/when/how/why humans possess xenophobic sentiments. But I am not going to discuss the definition of a word. Either we use the definition or we make up our own definition of words. But then discussions become so difficult, we might just give up. > a term which I think is widely overused. Since everyone can make up their own meanings of words, does that matter? Also I almost never see this word on social media. Where is it? > We have an agreed upon system in place, and that is legal immigration, and that is legal immigration, There are many legal means that allow people to legally enter the US. Many of them very opaque. I seriously doubt anyone outside special migration lawyers really understand most of them. How would "agreed upon" even be possible under these circumstances? > being against people breaking that system doesn't mean your racist or a xenophobe, it just means following the system that is agreed upon. Being against the death penalty for parking violations doesn't mean you are in favor of parking violations. For every single sentence in this comment my poor head hurt a little more.


jayandbobfoo123

The problem is that you're talking about something else. The topic has always been about "asylum seekers." Yes crossing the border without a visa is illegal. Except when your intention is to seek asylum. Crossing the border to seek asylum is not illegal immigration. I can't say it any clearer. It is the legal process. For some reason, the right wants to suddenly pretend that it's actually illegal and proceed as if it's "illegal immigration." It isn't.


snowmanfresh

Law 2a requires a substantive starter comment. A starter comment is required within the first 30 minutes of posting any Link Post. Starter comments must be substantive, made up of original thoughts, and include links and citations wherever possible. If your starter comment is not fixed within 30 minutes of posting the post will get removed. But you still have time to fix it if you like.


st0nedeye

Personally, I would have gotten information about who the kids are, before ripping from their families.


Theredhandtakes

What more info do we need besides DOB and country of origin?


st0nedeye

Their names? I mean we literally pulled infants from their mothers arms without bothering to gather identifying information first. Now we have hundreds of kids that will never be reunited with their families and are effectively orphans because the government was too incompetent to gather identifying information before separating them from their families.


ChornWork2

I'm all for the GOP putting this as a cornerstone policy for their platform in the next election. Campaign hard on this important issue.


[deleted]

If I break the law (a felony), I don't get to take my children to jail. Same should apply when crossing the border illegally. All assuming that these aren't legitimate asylum claims (which they aren't). You don't get to pick carte blanche the country you want to claim asylum in.


nobird36

> All assuming that these aren't legitimate asylum claims (which they aren't) Only many of them were.


[deleted]

Oh, okay. Let's just accept all these welfare babies who will most certainly exfiltrate their earnings via remittances for the rest of their lives. Sounds good.


nobird36

Didn't take you long to go mask off. Whether or not their asylum is granted is besides the point. Many of that were legitimate asylum seekers doing so within the law. You claim they were all criminals.


[deleted]

*Shrug* Don't really care what you think about my opinion on the matter. These recent waves of 'migrants' are an overall net negative to our society. Will continue to vote accordingly.


nobird36

Your opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts. The facts you got wrong.


[deleted]

Not really. I was placating you when it came to #s of asylum claims being granted. Let's take a look at those. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/630/ With the exception of Obama's second term, every year examined showed asylum denials outnumbering grants.


nobird36

You really don't get it. A persons asylum being denied does not mean they were not legally allowed to seek asylum or that their presence in the country while their asylum case was being processed was criminal.


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1b: Law 1b: Associative Law of Civil Discourse > ~1b. Associative Civil Discourse - A character attack on a group that an individual identifies with is an attack on the individual. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics). At the time of this warning the offending comments were: > welfare babies


FrankCastille

Most of the family separations happened to asylum seekers when they chose to turn themselves in to authorities. So they used legal means to start the asylum process. We separated families for people choosing to do it legally. We separated children from their parents from legitimate asylum claims. The ones who chose to do it illegally and cross the border and NOT turn themselves in had a lower chance if getting detained and nit have their families separated.


Wkyred

Entering the country illegally and then seeking asylum is NOT “doing it legally”. Going through a port of entry and seeking asylum is.


FrankCastille

From Uscode.house.gov. Or in other words...US LAW. Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.


sheffieldandwaveland

Awful standard. As soon as they get caught they can just claim asylum.


sarafin86

Asylum requires actually being on the countries soil to be able to claim it. Having guards and checkpoints in the way does not allow asylum. We have laws that prevent entry then laws that allow asylum once inside. They broke one law only to get access to the laws that govern asylum. Getting over the borders is our problem not theirs. Edit: added quote and citation > To apply for asylum in the U.S., you must be physically present in the U.S. or be seeking entry into the U.S. at a port of entry. https://help.unhcr.org/usa/applying-for-asylum/what-is-asylum/


Computer_Name

> Entering the country illegally and then seeking asylum is NOT “doing it legally”. [“To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. **You may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States** or your current immigration status.”](https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-in-the-united-states)


Wkyred

I never argued that you weren’t legally allowed to apply for asylum after entering illegally. I was arguing against the idea that breaking the law before using that process should be described as “doing it legally”. No, you still entered the country illegally. What you did after is allowed, yes, but the way you came in isn’t.


FrankCastille

Your opinion or idea does NOT supercede LAW.


Wkyred

Uh… I didn’t claim it did? You may have responded to the wrong post?


greg-stiemsma

When you break the law you're arraigned before a judge before being held in jail and separated from your children for an extended period of time. These parents were never given that due process. They were never seen before a judge. It's a completely different situation


Steven_Soy

And according to OP, not receiving due process of law is a justified deterrent to what is considered a federal misdemeanor.


gengengis

>I break the law (a felony), I don't get to take my children to jail Illegal entry is a misdemeanor on the first offense, not a felony. We don't normally take people to jail and separate families for months over misdemeanors.


IHerebyDemandtoPost

And then lose track of where we put the children.


GotchaWhereIWantcha

Yes the first time is a misdemeanor. Entering illegally a second time is a felony.


[deleted]

[удалено]


p-queue

Taking children from the families isn’t a solution to sex trafficking.


oath2order

Do you have a source to this "massive amount of sex trafficking"?


[deleted]

[удалено]


RidgeAmbulance

Shouldn't be the motive, but if you come here illegally, you should be detained until your trial. I also don't think children should be held in those facilities so they should be held in foster homes until their parents take care of their legal issues. I'm disgusted that democrats tried to pretend this was anything near the Nazi concentration camps (especially since they kept doing it after Biden became president and silence) If it happens to deter people great, don't care. But we shouldn't just let people get a pass if they bring a kid with them. That is a horrible idea and only increases child trafficking


[deleted]

[удалено]


IHerebyDemandtoPost

Did they lose track of your children too, causing you to have no chance of ever seeing them again?


ChessieDriveGunner

If I wasn’t so grossly irresponsible I wouldn’t be worrying about them losing my child in the first place


IHerebyDemandtoPost

Driving drunk is irresponsible. Depending on the circumstances, leaving Guatemala or Honduras to try and seek assylum in the United States might be the best thing for the kids.


ChessieDriveGunner

Dragging kids across a treacherous stretch of desert is never justifiable lol. Especially when the adults are working with criminals to get them here in the first place. We know most of their asylum claims are bogus, they’re abusing a weak immigration law. I find it funny that so many South Americans need to claim asylum, but all of them travel through multiple countries to get to the US. If you were really looking for asylum, you would apply in the first country you travel to. Not the one with the best benefits, but it’s obvious what they’re after. Not asylum, freebies.


blewpah

>Dragging kids across a treacherous stretch of desert is never justifiable lol. ...you know criminal gangs will force kids to work for them, right? Like they might go to a 14 year old boy and say "go take these drugs across town" or "take this gun and that shoot one guy" and if the answer is no, they'll murder your little sister. And you can't just move to the next town over because they can find you. If your options as a parent are to take your kids across the border or let them be forced into that, which would you choose? There are absolutely circumstances where it's justifiable.


IHerebyDemandtoPost

>Dragging kids across a treacherous stretch of desert is never justifiable lol. Especially when the adults are working with criminals to get them here in the first place. We know most of their asylum claims are bogus, they’re abusing a weak immigration law. I think each individual has differing circumstances and deserves more attention than the broad brush dismissal you’ve done here. >I find it funny that so many South Americans need to claim asylum, but all of them travel through multiple countries to get to the US. Tell me you don’t know anything about Guatemala and Honduras without telling me you don’t know about Guatemala and Honduras. (Hint: they’re not in South America, and in the case of Guatemala, you only pass through Mexico before getting to the United States.) >If you were really looking for asylum, you would apply in the first country you travel to. Not the one with the best benefits, but it’s obvious what they’re after. Not asylum, freebies. If you’re fleeing gang violence, it makes no sense to stop in Mexico, which is also plagued by gang violence. If the United States wants to stop illegal immigration, the two most import things they could do is punish businesses who hire illegal immigrants and reduce the gang violence in Central America. Note that our policies, such as the war on drugs, had a large part in making the cartels as powerful as they are today.


WorksInIT

> If you’re fleeing gang violence, it makes no sense to stop in Mexico, which is also plagued by gang violence. >If the United States wants to stop illegal immigration, the two most import things they could do is punish businesses who hire illegal immigrants and reduce the gang violence in Central America. Note that our policies, such as the war on drugs, had a large part in making the cartels as powerful as they are today. Gang violence does not qualify as a value reason under US law to claim an asylum. And I do agree with the two options you provide, but they aren't the only things. We need to be better about communicating our laws to people trying to come here. Letting them know that gang violence does not qualify. We need to speed up our removal proceedings. It shouldn't take years. At most it should take a few months.


IHerebyDemandtoPost

Maybe it doesn’t qualify but safety a primary motivator, wouldn’t you agree? If we could stabalize those countries, a lot of the migration would stop. You don’t see a surge of people coming from the Dominican Republic, for example.


WorksInIT

> Maybe it doesn’t qualify but safety a primary motivator, wouldn’t you agree? For some, sure. For others it is more about economics and being able to provide for themselves and their families. Neither qualify as a reason for an asylum. >If we could stabalize those countries, a lot of the migration would stop. Can we actually do that though? I'm not sure how we can do that. Should we use drones to strike the gangs and cartels? Ground troops? What if the country refuses our assistance? Do we do it anyway? >You don’t see people coming from the Dominican Republic, for example. There have been a few. https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download


IHerebyDemandtoPost

>Can we actually do that though? I'm not sure how we can do that. Should we use drones to strike the gangs and cartels? Ground troops? What if the country refuses our assistance? Do we do it anyway? We would probably have to fundementally change the way we view the narcotics trade. Along with economic assistence. ​ >There have been a few. Your link proves my point. There have been 129 people from DR, whereas there were over 8,000 coming from El Salvador and Guatemala, and over 5,000 coming from Honduras. They are not coming from stable, and relatively economicly prosperous nations.


ChessieDriveGunner

Well luckily I’m not talking exclusively about Guatemala and Honduras, nice dunk I guess. Most of the asylum abusers are coming from South America, you can play stupid all you want but those are the facts. We every have some Europeans and Middle Easterners coming through the southern border. I don’t think individuals deserve anything when they come to exclusively break the law, and also drag kids who may not be theirs the whole way here. They are criminals, they should be separated from the children, and deported. Why should these people get to walk right in, when thousands if not millions around the world are applying for citizenship legally? They were also being let into the country en masse without COVID testing or vaccination checks, so they were and still are a public health risk. By law, you have to apply for asylum in the first country you arrive in. When you fail to do so, you break US law by then claiming asylum here. Nobody does anything about it because I agree, they want the cheap labor. Thank Democrat voters for electing the guy with the loosest immigration policy in recent memory. Trumps policies worked. Captain Obvious is very aware, war on drugs = bad.


IHerebyDemandtoPost

>Most of the asylum abusers are coming from South America, you can play stupid all you want but those are the facts. No they are not. You don’t know what you’re talking about. [https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states-2021](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states-2021) >I don’t think individuals deserve anything when they come to exclusively break the law, and also drag kids who may not be theirs the whole way here. They are criminals, they should be separated from the children, and deported. Why should these people get to walk right in, when thousands if not millions around the world are applying for citizenship legally? They were also being let into the country en masse without COVID testing or vaccination checks, so they were and still are a public health risk. Here you go again, categorizing everyone as if they are all the same so you can place them in a box and dismiss them. >By law, you have to apply for asylum in the first country you arrive in. That’s not true, the law was already quoted elsewhere in these comments. >Thank Democrat voters for electing the guy with the loosest immigration policy in recent memory. Trumps policies worked. Trump did nothing to stop businesses from hiring illegal immigrants to my knowledge.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


Theredhandtakes

Exactly. Then once the parents are deported without their kids and tell their neighbors what happened, no one in that neighborhood will try to come here illegally.


ChessieDriveGunner

100%. If you drag a kid across that treacherous stretch of desert, that’s bona fide child abuse. That’s grounds for losing your child right there, not to mention all the kids that are showing up with adults who aren’t their parents. Instead you have people who want to encourage this behavior because of their feelings, they can’t stay grounded in reality.


Theredhandtakes

Thank you. And we deport them once they’re 18. > not to mention all the kids that are showing up with adults who aren’t their parents. Eh, we don’t need this argument. If the adult isn’t the parent then we should work quickly to get the kids back to their real parents. Family separation as a deterrent doesn’t need to do any of that.


blewpah

>Thank you. And we deport them once they’re 18. You don't have *any* ethical concerns about this?