• 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!

Honduran Man Takes Own Life After He Was Separated From Family at Border

Mandated use of eVerify is a start but why not make it a crime to rent to, educate or offer any other goods/services to the 'undocumented'? Obviously, a three year old did not come here to work - they were brought here to take advantage of a free education, medical care and other goods/services not available in their homeland. When the pay rate here is 8X to 10X that in their homeland then folks can make as much (or more) working one hour here as they could have made working the entire day had they stayed in their homeland.

While I agree with deporting illegal aliens, the three year old was brought here to have parental supervision. The group that annoys me the most are the Cubans that claim repression from Communism, then trade their Cuban government ration book for a US government ration book (otherwise known as EBT). If you wanted socialist benefits, you should have stayed in Cuba!
 
While I agree with deporting illegal aliens, the three year old was brought here to have parental supervision. The group that annoys me the most are the Cubans that claim repression from Communism, then trade their Cuban government ration book for a US government ration book (otherwise known as EBT). If you wanted socialist benefits, you should have stayed in Cuba!

Nonsense, the US offers many 'socialist' benefits and has added loud calls for amnesty (DACA/DAPA) to those foreign nationals that managed to enter illegally or overstay a visa. What started as an idea to grant birthright citizenship (only to slaves?) is now being extended to foreign national minors and those that support them.
 
Nonsense, the US offers many 'socialist' benefits and has added loud calls for amnesty (DACA/DAPA) to those foreign nationals that managed to enter illegally or overstay a visa. What started as an idea to grant birthright citizenship (only to slaves?) is now being extended to foreign national minors and those that support them.

There are a non-trivial number of people receiving TANF, returning to Cuba then having a relative pull the money out of an ATM and send it to Cuba via Western Union. Why work full time in Cuba for $25 per month when you can have Uncle Sam send you $500 per month in the comfort of your home?
 
Mandated use of eVerify is a start but why not make it a crime to rent to, educate or offer any other goods/services to the 'undocumented'? Obviously, a three year old did not come here to work - they were brought here to take advantage of a free education, medical care and other goods/services not available in their homeland. When the pay rate here is 8X to 10X that in their homeland then folks can make as much (or more) working one hour here as they could have made working the entire day had they stayed in their homeland.

No issue here. I'm inclined to agree with you on that point.
 
We need to stop Trump abusing children.
AKA, federal immigration laws shouldn't be enforced. Nope. Not an option.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
AKA, federal immigration laws shouldn't be enforced. Nope. Not an option.

This is a policy change Sessions did a month ago.

It's a violation of law, so you have things a bit backwards.

But you are correct, it's not an option, and the courts will stop it.
 
This is a policy change Sessions did a month ago.

It's a violation of law, so you have things a bit backwards.

But you are correct, it's not an option, and the courts will stop it.

From what I've heard reported it was a policy instituted, but never enforced, during the Obama administration.

Even so, the decision which set the potential for this situation, and other like it, lies with those who decided for themselves to enter the country illegally. They chose this path for themselves, no one chose it for them, nor forced them to enter the country illegally.
 
So what would you like to see done instead? Or is bashing Trump your only purpose here.

Strangely most of this current Trump bash is actually policies implemented and started by Barry and in some cases earlier. The kids in cages. The losing kids. It was Obama who encouraged unaccompanied kids being admitted and placing them with relatives or in foster homes. The kids are not lost. Their paperwork is.

The alternative is to leave the kids in jail with their parents.
 
From which Right wing swamp?

We didn't rip families apart unless there was a damn good reason to do so.

This is a multi-step sequence, so stay with me (and the citation below).

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.
. . .
The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.
. . .
When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.
. . .
because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/

As driven by the Flores Consent Decree from 1997, what was during the Trump administration, right?

So why all the outage range? Why be played by the TDS 'news' (political propagandist) media?
 
This is a multi-step sequence, so stay with me (and the citation below).



As driven by the Flores Consent Decree from 1997, what was during the Trump administration, right?

So why all the outage range? Why be played by the TDS 'news' (political propagandist) media?

Why are you pretending the new policy, "Zero Tolerance" that Sessions himself started a month ago, isn't there.

"A federal judge in California is allowing a lawsuit against the Trump administration's practice of separating migrant families at the border to proceed.

"Such conduct, if true, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," wrote U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California in his ruling on Wednesday. "

See you in court...

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/6179...ng-trump-administration-family-separation-pol
 
Why are you pretending the new policy, "Zero Tolerance" that Sessions himself started a month ago, isn't there.

So that'd be the difference between not enforcing existing immigration law and enforcing existing immigration law. OK.

"A federal judge in California is allowing a lawsuit against the Trump administration's practice of separating migrant families at the border to proceed.

"Such conduct, if true, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," wrote U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California in his ruling on Wednesday. "

See you in court...

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/6179...ng-trump-administration-family-separation-pol

Fair enough. But do please note, I've only expressed what is the law. Further, those who chose for themselves to violate federal immigration law, to violate sovereign nation's borders have volunteered to subject themselves to the possibility of such outcomes.

By all means, things would be better for everyone should they not do so.
 
So that'd be the difference between not enforcing existing immigration law and enforcing existing immigration law. OK.



Fair enough. But do please note, I've only expressed what is the law. Further, those who chose for themselves to violate federal immigration law, to violate sovereign nation's borders have volunteered to subject themselves to the possibility of such outcomes.

By all means, things would be better for everyone should they not do so.

This is like I spy with my little eye and the answer is always Even More Crap.

Presenting yourself at the border and asking for asylum is perfectly legal. It's abusive either way, of course, but that's just hideous bigotry.

Next, you don't get to break a number of laws enforcing law.

Lastly, this is not what was done before.
 
This is like I spy with my little eye and the answer is always Even More Crap.

Presenting yourself at the border and asking for asylum is perfectly legal.

Undisputed. Requesting asylum is perfectly legal, and the legitimacy of those claims decided in the appropriate legal process, as prescribed by federal immigration law.

It's abusive either way, of course, but that's just hideous bigotry.

Next, you don't get to break a number of laws enforcing law.
Hence a court determining the resolution between laws that appear to be in conflict is most appropriate.
Lastly, this is not what was done before.

Again, the difference between not enforcing existing immigration law and enforcing existing immigration law. There's no bigotry in it.
 
Again, the difference between not enforcing existing immigration law and enforcing existing immigration law. There's no bigotry in it.

The intent makes the crime, and the intent was entirely bigoted.
 
The intent makes the crime, and the intent was entirely bigoted.

Intent of another is notoriously difficult, and in legal cases near impossible to prove, so I guess you are free to make up your own as you see fit.

Never mind that your imaginings are probably not accurate in the slightest, but as you will. :shrug:
 
So you have no answer. That's what I figured.

If anyone does an advanced search of your posts, they're going to find out that you use that
"So you have no answer" nonsense about once every three posts.
That doesn't mean you're mostly right about everything, it means you can't figure out how to use a debate forum.
 
Nonsense. We have to close the loopholes, the incentives, deal humanly with those who are here. We are talking about people. I am not saying they should get a free ride. Certain stipulations should be made... learning the language is high on my list...fines per year of being here, etc.

They were supposed to learn the language 30 years ago after Ronald Reagan granted a blanket amnesty;Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
Loopholes were never closed, promises never kept. What makes you think new stipulations are going to change anything? They just kept coming... and the left just keeps coddling them. Nothing ever changes.

made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
 
Intent of another is notoriously difficult, and in legal cases near impossible to prove, so I guess you are free to make up your own as you see fit.

Never mind that your imaginings are probably not accurate in the slightest, but as you will. :shrug:

"Mexicans are rapists"

GMAFB
 
Sad...Dood probably should have kept his family in the Honduras and attempted to come here legally. Or maybe he should have sought legal immigration to Canada, or Cuba, or Mexico, or any of the other fine destinations out there.

Legal immigration is mutually beneficial and needed. Illegal immigration needs to be stopped.
 
This was a deliberate choice, Sessions announced the change a month ago.
FALSE.

In 1997 the Reno v. Flores settlement mandated placement of unaccompanied minors into foster care or licensed non-secure facilities. The Obama administration started placing the surge of Central American families seeking entry into secure family detention centers in 2014. In 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Flores v. Lynchthat the Flores settlement also applied to accompanied minors, and the family detentions were in violation of the settlement.

This is not a Trump policy. This is a Ninth Circuit interpretation of a 1997 agreement.
 
Why are you pretending the new policy, "Zero Tolerance" that Sessions himself started a month ago, isn't there.

"A federal judge in California is allowing a lawsuit against the Trump administration's practice of separating migrant families at the border to proceed.

"Such conduct, if true, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," wrote U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California in his ruling on Wednesday. "

See you in court...

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/6179...ng-trump-administration-family-separation-pol

Except it isn't Trump's policy. It's the policy created by the Ninth Circuit, under whom this judge serves. If the separation of families "is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," one can't help but wonder why the Ninth Circuit mandated it.
 
Back
Top Bottom