• 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!

Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border

Old Trapper said:
Tell me something. Did you even read either of the two articles I read? I mean, really read them? In neither case were the parents charged with any crime. Next, do you have a clue as to what seeking asylum is all about? Finally, do you know what kind of a crime illegally entering the country is? Look it up.
Click to expand...

I did, and both articles are biased. The LATimes is the best one, although it admits that the outcry is from "activists." The Nation piece is totally unreliable, as it does not use real names nor does it link to any ACLU cases (which are public).

Also, in The Nation article, the writer makes the bogus (but oft-repeated) claim that immigrants do not use social services. This is a common attempt to misinform. In reality, immigrants use federal, state and local services, and the funding is often crippling to a community.

Programs that serve undocumented immigrants include school meal programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Head Start, and various in-kind emergency services. Undocumented immigrants are also eligible for Emergency Medicaid. This program typically covers acute medical situations including childbirth but not longer-term treatment for chronic conditions, even if they are life-threatening. The services provided vary by state. Emergency Medicaid is estimated to cost about $2 billion per year, well less than 1 percent of the overall Medicaid budget, and most of that cost is thought to be attributable to unauthorized immigrants.

State and local governments disproportionately bear the burden of supporting undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are legally required to have access to K-12 public school, and almost all K-12 education funding comes from state and local governments. The share of children who are undocumented immigrants and attend Kindergarten through 12th grade at public and private schools is relatively small, making up about 1.3 percent of total enrollment in 2014 (about 725,000 students) according to a study by the Pew Research Center. However, another 5.9 percent of students who are U.S. citizens have at least one undocumented parent. Some states also provide other benefits to undocumented immigrants, including in-state tuition to undocumented students and state-funded safety net programs.
Click to expand...

Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits? | Econofact

So, that's just a rebuttal to the bogus article from The Nation.

Let's look at separating children from parents.

The Nation does admit that this only affects a "small minority."

Now, I want to ask you a question -- do you think it's okay to separate the parents of criminals from their children? Because we do it every single day when our courts sentence criminal citizens to jail or prison time. Every single day -- and those are citizens of the United States. We do not put children in jail with their parents, even though it surely traumatizes the children.

Ignoring our immigration laws is also a violation, and immigration authorities are starting to charge more undocumented immigrants with crimes. Those immigrants are then detained - and - just like the policy we have in effect for American citizens who violate laws are detained -- they are separated from their children.

North Korea (I've read) sometimes imprisons children along with their parents. Is that what you want here in America?

Please, if you're going to post additional links, explain what you think the link is going to show -- explain how it will back up your narrative. And, understand that opinion pieces, while they might be emotionally pulling, are just the opinions of their writers, and when all of their "sources" are anonymous or un-sourced, be suspicious.

I'd like it if you answer the emboldened question above.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Now, I want to ask you a question -- do you think it's okay to separate the parents of criminals from their children?
Click to expand...

I asked you before if your understood the asylum laws in America, and being the biased bigot you are you chose to ignore them, so here they are. The children in these cases are not being removed from criminals as you falsely, and ignorantly, claim:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

"Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page."
 
Old Trapper said:
I asked you before if your understood the asylum laws in America, and being the biased bigot you are you chose to ignore them, so here they are. The children in these cases are not being removed from criminals as you falsely, and ignorantly, claim:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

"Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page."
Click to expand...

Who said any of the cases being referred to here are cases of asylum?
 
Old Trapper said:
I asked you before if your understood the asylum laws in America, and being the biased bigot you are you chose to ignore them, so here they are. The children in these cases are not being removed from criminals as you falsely, and ignorantly, claim:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum
Click to expand...

Name-calling now? Of course I know the asylum laws, but are you aware that about 90% of all those who apply for asylum are denied? Do you know why? Because they are liars. And, the denials have nothing to do with Trump, they were occurring at that same rate under Obama, too.

That mean 90% of those who apply for asylum are lying, and, if they're lying, then they are violating our immigration laws, and if they are violating our immigration laws (criminal charges are increasing) then they don't get to have their children with them during that detention period. It's not in the child's best interest.

So, perhaps the woman in the story was or was not really seeking asylum. Odds are (statistically, speaking) she was lying.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Name-calling now? Of course I know the asylum laws, but are you aware that about 90% of all those who apply for asylum are denied? Do you know why? Because they are liars. And, the denials have nothing to do with Trump, they were occurring at that same rate under Obama, too.

That mean 90% of those who apply for asylum are lying, and, if they're lying, then they are violating our immigration laws, and if they are violating our immigration laws (criminal charges are increasing) then they don't get to have their children with them during that detention period. It's not in the child's best interest.

So, perhaps the woman in the story was or was not really seeking asylum. Odds are (statistically, speaking) she was lying.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for your typical right wing BS? Many are denied not because the party is lying, it is because of people with your limited mentality.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pr...arole-denial-asylum-seekers-under-trump-admin

Washington, D.C.—Human Rights First today released a report that finds that in the eight months since President Trump signed his January 25 executive order calling for increased immigration detention, asylum seekers are largely refused parole, leaving many locked up in immigration detention facilities and jails for months or longer. Today’s report, “Judge and Jailer,” comes days before the Supreme Court is set to hear the Jennings v. Rodriguez immigration detention case.

“President Trump’s executive order has caused many immigration officials to refuse to release asylum seekers from detention—even those who qualify for and should be released on parole,” said Human Rights First’s Eleanor Acer. “The administration’s costly and cruel policy of locking up asylum seekers in detention facilities and jails for months or longer violates U.S. human rights and refugee protection treaties as well as the Constitution. When the United States detains people who have fled persecution and oppression, holding them for months and longer without a fair hearing to determine if they actually need to be detained, we undermine human rights not only here at home, but also globally.”

On January 25, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct and operate immigration detention facilities and hold immigrants there for the duration of their immigration court proceedings. Then-Secretary John Kelly stated in his February 20 memorandum implementing the order that ICE’s Asylum Parole Directive was still “in full force and effect.” The government repeated this assertion to the Supreme Court one day later in a brief filed in the Jennings v. Rodriguez case. That case is slated to be argued before the Supreme Court next week.

The report’s findings include:

ICE’s 2009 Asylum Parole Directive appears to exist merely on paper and not in practice in many detention locations.
Parole grants to asylum seekers appear to have plummeted in the wake of President Trump’s January 25 executive order at many detention facilities and jails—including in Illinois, Michigan, New York, the San Francisco Bay Area, Louisiana, and South Texas—with ICE now rarely, if ever, granting parole at these facilities.
At other detention facilities and jails where parole grants were already rare, including in Arizona, New Jersey, and the Northwest, pro bono attorneys report that parole releases continue to be rare to non-existent.
Asylum seekers who are eligible for parole consideration under ICE’s 2009 ICE Asylum Parole Directive are often needlessly held in detention by ICE—for many months or longer—despite meeting the relevant release criteria.
 
Last edited:
I will bet the right wingers really hate these true Americans for showing what the real America is supposed to look like:

Migrant Caravan: Hundreds of Americans to Open Their Homes to Asylum Seekers

Hundreds of people across the United States have offered to open up their homes to the Central American asylum seekers traveling with the "migrant caravan" that President Donald Trump has been determined to stop from entering the country, organizers have told Newsweek.

Jess Morales Rocketto, chairperson of We Belong Together, an immigration campaign launched by the National Domestic Worker Alliance, said as many as 200 people from several states, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri and Virginia, are prepared to offer shelter in their homes.

The asylum seekers, who started their weeks-long journey from southern Mexico to the U.S. late last month, are currently in Tijuana. They are preparing to make their way to the U.S. border on Sunday, where they will make their asylum claims.
 
For those who claim to know asylum laws in the US, you might want to read this:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states


Obtaining Asylum in the United States

The two ways of obtaining asylum in the United States are through the affirmative process and defensive process.
Affirmative Asylum Processing With USCIS

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
 
Old Trapper said:
Do you have a source for your typical right wing BS? Many are denied not because the party is lying, it is because of people with your limited mentality.
Click to expand...

They are denied if they don't meet the criteria. You know what the criteria is -- you posted some of it.

In fact, in FY 2016 immigration judges denied these 4,515 unrepresented asylum seekers' claims 90 percent of the time. In contrast, if represented, the odds of denial last year was 48 percent. Or stated another way, more than five out of every ten represented asylum seekers were successful as compared with only one out of every ten who were unrepresented. This translates to a success rate that was five times higher when you had an attorney.
Click to expand...
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/448/


Your article claims that even fewer asylum seekers will be admitted under Trump, but the report I just cited -- that 90% are denied -- was through 2016, so that was all happening under Obama.

So, we have only 10% of those who are filing for asylum being actually deserving of asylum.

We're ending the catch-and-release program whereby we would arrest someone who crossed without documentation and then give them a court date -- and then let them go free pending that date. You know what happened? They didn't show up for their court dates. We both know why, don't we?

So now they're being detained instead, and there's no earthly reason why an innocent child should be in detention when it did nothing wrong. The sad thing is that the child will have a few months of a good life but will then be returned to its parent and the two of them returned to the country of their origin. At least that's what will happen if they fall into the 10% who are actually approved for asylum.
 
HowardBThiname said:
They are denied if they don't meet the criteria. You know what the criteria is -- you posted some of it.


http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/448/


Your article claims that even fewer asylum seekers will be admitted under Trump, but the report I just cited -- that 90% are denied -- was through 2016, so that was all happening under Obama.

So, we have only 10% of those who are filing for asylum being actually deserving of asylum.

We're ending the catch-and-release program whereby we would arrest someone who crossed without documentation and then give them a court date -- and then let them go free pending that date. You know what happened? They didn't show up for their court dates. We both know why, don't we?

So now they're being detained instead, and there's no earthly reason why an innocent child should be in detention when it did nothing wrong. The sad thing is that the child will have a few months of a good life but will then be returned to its parent and the two of them returned to the country of their origin. At least that's what will happen if they fall into the 10% who are actually approved for asylum.
Click to expand...

First off, you claimed that 90% were denied for lying, and that was bull ****.

Next, the report shows that if one is unrepresented (you do know what that means right?) the denial rate is 90%. If they have legal representation, which more are acquiring due to more pro bono legal groups forming, that decline rate drops to less then 50%.

Third, detention facilities need not be like prisons save for the fact that Trump, and his kind, want to make it as miserable as possible.

Finally, you should do some research on the latest Trump gambit. Hearings for those being detained are held 300 to 500 miles from the Court, and by video conferencing. So there is little possibility that the one seeking asylum can meet with the attorney, or even appear before the judge in person. Video conferencing is nothing new, it is the distance that has been increased under Trump.

Anything to make it harder for the one seeking asylum thus guaranteeing that more will die, and more will suffer. That is the right wing way.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...istration-over-prolonged-detention/425572002/

The lawsuit, filed by a group of civil rights organizations in federal court in the District of Columbia on behalf of nine plaintiffs, estimates that more than 1,000 asylum seekers are now facing indefinite detention even though they have passed initial screenings to verify their stories and pose no threat to national security.

"We came to the U.S. seeking freedom, and what we got was a prison," Abelardo Asensio Callol, 30, a software engineer from Cuba, said by phone from the York County, Pa., Prison where he's been held for several months.


This is just an example of what the Trumpkins consider to be "American justice":

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/donald-trump-immigration-court-deportation-lasalle
 
Last edited:
Good!

Maybe this will send a message to all the border jumping illegals not to come here and destroy our country.

LOCK THEM UP... ALL OF THEM.

We finally have a POTUS that cares about BORDERS. Thanks GOD.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/immigrant-children-separation-ice.html

Wow, just wow. I can think of no valid reason to justify this, and find this practice completely and utterly in contempt. In my opinion this is a human rights violation, and the courts or congress needs to step in and put an end to it.
Click to expand...

Sounds crazy. Are these kids so called anchor babies born in the us, or are they citizens of other countries brought here illegally, and the U.S. government is holding then indefinitely just to punish their parents? Either outcome is disgusting and defies rhetoric of simply protecting the boarder.
 
If these children were taken from their poverty bred, uneducated parents who tried to use them to gain access to the greatest country in the world....then these children are better off and have a real chance of being productive humans now.
 
AustralianuS said:
Good!

Maybe this will send a message to all the border jumping illegals not to come here and destroy our country.

LOCK THEM UP... ALL OF THEM.

We finally have a POTUS that cares about BORDERS. Thanks GOD.
Click to expand...

Another freaking idiot speaks out. Since it is obvious you could not care less about the rule of law (and refugees are not here illegally if you had read the law), ignorant asses like you will still support the idiot in charge as he violates not only American law, but international law. And the Repugnant Party will do nothing about it.
 
AustralianuS said:
If these children were taken from their poverty bred, uneducated parents who tried to use them to gain access to the greatest country in the world....then these children are better off and have a real chance of being productive humans now.
Click to expand...

Like you with all of your intellect, and moral standards? Another Trumpkin speaks out of his ass.
 
AustralianuS said:
If these children were taken from their poverty bred, uneducated parents who tried to use them to gain access to the greatest country in the world....then these children are better off and have a real chance of being productive humans now.
Click to expand...

They are better off why? Are they better off because some future lunkhead will try to use them as a bargaining chip to pass whacked out Immigration policy? Is that why they are better off? Are you really telling us that you would support a DACA like executive order offering these children a path to some sort of preferred life having taken them from their parents? Who decides what this future life should be and who decides that it is unilaterally "better" to pursue this future life than living it with the parents they know and are bonded to in the way that children are bonded to their parents. Then again, if you are really telling us that Republicans are generally hatched and tossed out into the cold immediately after said hatching, that would explain a good deal.
 
jnug said:
They are better off why? Are they better off because some future lunkhead will try to use them as a bargaining chip to pass whacked out Immigration policy? Is that why they are better off? Are you really telling us that you would support a DACA like executive order offering these children a path to some sort of preferred life having taken them from their parents? Who decides what this future life should be and who decides that it is unilaterally "better" to pursue this future life than living it with the parents they know and are bonded to in the way that children are bonded to their parents. Then again, if you are really telling us that Republicans are generally hatched and tossed out into the cold immediately after said hatching, that would explain a good deal.
Click to expand...

They are better off because they people that put them in mortal danger getting to the border cannot put their lives in danger anymore.
 
Mason66 said:
They are better off because they people that put them in mortal danger getting to the border cannot put their lives in danger anymore.
Click to expand...

And how are you guaranteeing that?
 
jnug said:
And how are you guaranteeing that?
Click to expand...

Guaranteeing what? Those people put the lives of those children in mortal danger bringing them to the US border. I can guarantee that.

Is that what you were asking?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Listen to yourself, we have no way to prove those children do or do not belong to anyone. We are taking children from people, with little or no proof of wrongdoing, without a means of returning those children. Without due process.

It's horrendously bad, there is no way to justify it. None.
Click to expand...

Actually as they are illegally crossing an international border we have conclusive proof of wrong doing and circumstantial proof the adults do not respect the law
 
Old Trapper said:
Tell me something. Did you even read either of the two articles I read? I mean, really read them? In neither case were the parents charged with any crime. Next, do you have a clue as to what seeking asylum is all about? Finally, do you know what kind of a crime illegally entering the country is? Look it up.
Click to expand...

These people are fraudulently seeking asylum. You cannot claim asylum to escape because of general crime or bad economy.

Like the LA times article about the Brazilian woman linked earlier, if she were truly just trying to escape crime in Brazil, she can legally live and work without a visa in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, or Paraguay which all have lower crime then Brazil. Why was her son wanted by gangs? Did she explain that? Maybe because he is in a gang? But regardless the asylum claim is fraud because she bypassed multiple safer bordering countries where she has Mercosur rights to live
 
Mason66 said:
Guaranteeing what? Those people put the lives of those children in mortal danger bringing them to the US border. I can guarantee that.

Is that what you were asking?
Click to expand...

People in this thread are contending that the children are now better off. Based on what can they make that claim? What structure is there in place to deal with these kids or is the intention just to have more people to hold hostage as bargaining chips in an effort to try to get absurd Immigration laws passed?

I don't see what the next step is after having taken these children. The next step is what? I will guarantee you that the folks that see some sense in taking them are the same folks that rail against an Obama-like DACA executive order. Yet their contention is that these children are better off being separated from their parents. Unless there is a next step that leads to something better that is a heck of a lot of pain to be meting out on the thin logic that the children are "categorically" better off. Just sounds like more Right Wing gibberish to me with usual dose of "we really don't give a damn" tossed in.
 
jnug said:
People in this thread are contending that the children are now better off. Based on what can they make that claim? What structure is there in place to deal with these kids or is the intention just to have more people to hold hostage as bargaining chips in an effort to try to get absurd Immigration laws passed?

I don't see what the next step is after having taken these children. The next step is what? I will guarantee you that the folks that see some sense in taking them are the same folks that rail against an Obama-like DACA executive order. Yet their contention is that these children are better off being separated from their parents. Unless there is a next step that leads to something better that is a heck of a lot of pain to be meting out on the thin logic that the children are "categorically" better off. Just sounds like more Right Wing gibberish to me with usual dose of "we really don't give a damn" tossed in.
Click to expand...

You cannot make the assumption their traveling companions are their parents.

If there is no documentation to prove they are, you have to assume they are not and therefore you have to protect those children.

Did you not read the OP. It said the US tries to find a relative in the US and they place the child there.

If they can't do that there are facilities to house them.

Putting the child in that situation is not the fault of the US, but the fault of the people putting that child in harms way.

What would you have the US do? Should they leave children with human traffickers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom