• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump signs executive order to stop family separations at border

ElChupacabra said:
They have a right to come and seek asylum according to this country's law. The question is how can they be effectively vetted and processed.
Click to expand...
"First safe country".

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
digsbe said:
:roll:

If you can't see the rampant media bias, DNC corruption that is hardly being held accountable, the vile hatred towards the GOP and the president (for ****s sake how many celebrities have death threats towards the president? Recently one wants Bannon Trump raped in a cage by a pedophile). Trump deserve criticism where it's due, but the liberal hysterics, rampant lies, and hatred need to be combated with reality and truth. You have to see the monster the left has become and the corruption the DNC is attempting to get away with.
Click to expand...

I give up. How many celebrities have death threats towards the President? Because that's illegal you know - it's actually illegal to threaten anyone with death. So these celebrities would all have been charged with a crime by now. So who are they, and when are their trials, or when do they get released from prison?

Rampant lies? You mean like the ones repeated by the Trump administration for the last month that this policy, issued by AG Sessions a few months ago, was a law signed by Clinton that only Congress could fix?
 
digsbe said:
Trump signs executive order to stop family separations at border | Fox News

There is now an executive order signed by the president to stop separating children from their illegal alien parents when detained for unlawfully crossing the US border. It appears congress is also to act on this as well.
Click to expand...

It's good that Congress is going to act on this, and all those crowing about how Trump lied about him not being able to fix the separation issue simply by signing an EO are likely going to be eating their own crow in time. The EO is likely to be overturned, just as a similar action by Barack Obama was overturned. The Flores case makes it against the law for the federal government to hold children in detention with their parents for longer than 20 days. Considering that numerous illegal advocacy groups don't actually give a **** about family separation and REALLY just cared about allowing as many immigrants to come into the country in any fashion possible, you can bet the house that they will challenge this in court and likely win, getting it overturned and forcing separations to occur again.

Trump and his people attempting to use the child separation as a deterrence to illegal immigrants is a disgusting act. So too are those on the other side who are showing faux concern for child separation instead of just flat out admitting plainly and clearly their disdain is for the strict enforcement of the immigration laws on those who enter illegally and they don't actually care about fixing the separation issues, it's just a tool to batter the administration with to thwart their true grievance.
 
Barnacle said:
2/3 of the world's countries are considered 2nd and 3rd world countries. People in there would like to see their countries "cleaned up" but according to you ...

You can’t honestly believe that they can “clean up” their own country?!!!?? No, you cannot actually believe that. Because that’s impossible and you are just trying to come up with something.

which means we would have to take in all those people because, according to you, they can't clean up their own countries.
Click to expand...

How do you propose they do that? And if it’s so easy, why haven’t they done it? the US education system needs some cleaning up, why don’t you work on that?

How freaking ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
That is the consequence of committing a crime. We are not going to stop detaining and jailing criminals just because they have children.
Click to expand...
Or jailing their children.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
digsbe said:
No, they will find a way to bitch about this too more than likely. This was never truly about the kids for some people, it was all about how anything can be used to attack Trump.
Click to expand...

Well Trump is the gift that keeps on giving, kinda like political herpes.... ;)

For some it truly was about the kids- using them as hostage to get THE WALL (that would be the one Trump claimed would be paid for by Mexico)

Problem is the 'crisis' was staged by Trump's team and could have been fixed with a phone call- no EO needed. Trump shows the patience and restraint of a child in a candy store. He lacks compassion for anyone outside his clique unless his wife tells him it would look good and he'll listen as long as he is in a Stormy doghouse... :peace
 
ClaraD said:
The law says anyone granted credible fear can petition the IJ for asylum. Credible fear interviews are conducted by ICE. If ICE denies the immigrant ca n appeal to the IJ. That is the law my friend.
Click to expand...
There are legal entry points, they are not allowed to enter illegally because they are afraid.
 
j-mac said:
We can not and should not be expected to take everyone that wishes to come here.

It is my understanding that those seeking asylum are to seek it "in the first safe country". That would be Mexico.

Mexico is not our friend in this.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Mexico is not considered safe per asylum rules
 
Hatuey said:
Or jailing their children.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

You don't know if they are their children; the entire reason for the change in the 90s was because smugglers and criminals figured out we would go easy on them if they had "a child", so they started kidnapping kids.
 
Anthony60 said:
There are legal entry points, they are not allowed to enter illegally because they are afraid.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong about that...read the law on asylum. It requires either a legal entry point OR within a year inside the USA. I was shown that piece of law at Puente Nuevo, Brownsville, Tx by a CBP supervisor in 2015.
 
Samhain said:
You don't know if they are their children; the entire reason for the change in the 90s was because smugglers and criminals figured out we would go easy on them if they had "a child", so they started kidnapping kids.
Click to expand...

We know they are children...
 
ClaraD said:
You would be wrong about that...read the law on asylum. It requires either a legal entry point OR within a year inside the USA. I was shown that piece of law at Puente Nuevo, Brownsville, Tx by a CBP supervisor in 2015.
Click to expand...

What does "within a year inside the USA" mean? Are you saying that means you can enter the country illegally? It doesn't seem to say that.
 
The children who are placed in detention are not grandfathered into the "new policy" addressed in the new EO.
 
ClaraD said:
You would be wrong about that...read the law on asylum. It requires either a legal entry point OR within a year inside the USA. I was shown that piece of law at Puente Nuevo, Brownsville, Tx by a CBP supervisor in 2015.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong.

Nothing about the laws on asylum allow make illegal entry into the U.S. suddenly legal.

First, you realize there are LEGAL methods in which an asylum seeker would enter the borders of the US, as opposed to just an official point of entry, and then request asylum, yes? That's part of what it's being talked about with your "year inside the USA" thing.

Second, yes...even if they come in illegally, they may request asylum. However, requesting asylum doesn't remove the fact they entered illegally prior to requesting said asylum.

People can get a driver's license. If you illegally drove your car to the DMV to take the test, and got pulled over on your way there, the fact you were going to get your license doesn't erase the crime you had previously committed. It simply helps you for the future.

Yes, those in the united states...even illegally...can end up requesting asylum. However, that request of asylum doesn't magically retroactively excuse, or make legal, their illegal entry.
 
Parrish said:
The children who are placed in detention are not grandfathered into the "new policy" addressed in the new EO.
Click to expand...

Correct, and I would add that the EO is temporary, in 20 days it ends and we are back to square one.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, they have no right. We let them come here legally. Those are the rules. We set them, it’s our country. We could decide tomorrow that the borders are closed, and no one comes in.


Sent from my iPhone XXX using None of your damn business.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the way the world works. In 1967, the US agreed to the international refugee convention. Now, people ignorant of history and frothing about "other people" think the country can do whatever it wants. What a lovely world you envision for the rest of us.
 
tres borrachos said:
The funniest thing for me about the citizens of Trump Fan Nation is how they're all saying that they actually *knew* that Mexico wasn't going to pay for the wall, and they didn't believe Trump anyway. Their efforts to save their own faces because they know they were suckered by the world's biggest con man is both pathetic and sad at the same time. They can't even be honest about it.
Click to expand...

They're not honest about anything. What used to be political spin has become outright, unashamed, blatant lying under this administration. I can't wait for 45 to go away. I also worry about how long his damage will last.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
No, that's not the way the world works. In 1967, the US agreed to the international refugee convention. Now, people ignorant of history and frothing about "other people" think the country can do whatever it wants. What a lovely world you envision for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Is that a treaty? No. Does it supercede our Constitution? No. Do the refugees have to abide by the laws of the country, including legal immigration? Yes. Can we refuse anyone we want to? Yes.
 
ClaraD said:
We know they are children...
Click to expand...

Great, what are you supposed to do with a child when you find them in the desert, and you don't know who they are? Orphanage? Meat grinder? Wave at them and walk away? do tell.
 
Casper said:
Correct, and I would add that the EO is temporary, in 20 days it ends and we are back to square one.
Click to expand...

I believe you're confusing the EO with the “Flores settlement” 20 day limitations.
 
j-mac said:
"First safe country".

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're talking about an agreement between Canada and the US and an informal consensus among the G20 and a ruling by the EU's supreme court that have nothing to do with the refugees crossing the southern border.

"There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive."

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...fugees-claim-asylum-first-safe-country-europe

https://cis.org/Cadman/Why-Shouldnt-Central-Americans-Have-Apply-Asylum-Mexico
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom