I was wrong... Children shouldn’t be separated from their families upon entering US illegally

[Phys251]

Deport you back to Mexico. Let the Mexican govt deal with you. :mrgreen:

Not cool.

 

[mike2810]

Not cool.

Why? They came in illegally. Why should someone who comes in illegally be able to jump ahead of those who are following the laws and working on legal entry?
If they come in legally, then by all means welcome them.

What I have seen on the news is people who entered illegally and got caught. Many of them have limited skills to offer. So if they stay, how many of them are going to add to are already stretched welfare programs?


They should work to fix their own country. If the want to immigrate to the US. Then follow the procedures. (yes, I know the system is burdensome. ).

 

[Phys251]

Why? They came in illegally. Why should someone who comes in illegally be able to jump ahead of those who are following the laws and working on legal entry?

I'm sorry, you must have missed the part where children, literal children, are legally representing themselves in immigration courts. Are you seriously okay with that?

 

[Floridafan]

Why? They came in illegally. Why should someone who comes in illegally be able to jump ahead of those who are following the laws and working on legal entry?
If they come in legally, then by all means welcome them.

What I have seen on the news is people who entered illegally and got caught. Many of them have limited skills to offer. So if they stay, how many of them are going to add to are already stretched welfare programs?


They should work to fix their own country. If the want to immigrate to the US. Then follow the procedures. (yes, I know the system is burdensome. ).

Undocumented residents do not receive welfare. Why propagate a lie?

 

[mike2810]

I'm sorry, you must have missed the part where children, literal children, are legally representing themselves in immigration courts. Are you seriously okay with that?

I didn't miss anything. Sorry, you must have missed the part they came in illegally. Are you ok with the parents of said "children" either not knowing they crossed the border illegally or sent them across illegally?

If I could make it happen the courts would not be tied up with illegal entry cases for the most part. I would have the laws changed that if caught coming across illegally, the person is shipped back across the border asap.

Call me cold hearted, but I am not buying the poor children stance anymore. I also find it interesting to watch some of the AZ Congressional reps play the poor children card. Yet, none of them state how the US should pay for all of the influx that is going on.

 

[mike2810]

Undocumented residents do not receive welfare. Why propagate a lie?

Sorry for the bad choice of words. You are technically correct. However, who do you think pays when they are going through the process? If they are poor, you don't think they are getting a handout somewhere? If you believe illegal aliens are a free lunch to US taxpayers, you are mistaken.

IRLI - Home
"llegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year - an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates - according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "

 

[Floridafan]

Sorry for the bad choice of words. You are correct. However, who do you think pays when they are going through the process? If they are poor, you don't think they are getting a handout somewhere? If you believe illegal aliens are a free lunch to US taxpayers, you are mistaken.

IRLI - Home
"llegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year - an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates - according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "

How much do you think this country has spent in the past year just keeping up the life styles of trump and his cabinet members. I don't hear you complaining of all the money being added to the national debt by this administration. I don't hear you complaining about the billions of unneeded money being thrown at the defense department. No, the only bad guys are those trying to cross the border.

 

[mike2810]

How much do you think this country has spent in the past year just keeping up the life styles of trump and his cabinet members. I don't hear you complaining of all the money being added to the national debt by this administration. I don't hear you complaining about the billions of unneeded money being thrown at the defense department. No, the only bad guys are those trying to cross the border.

Moving the goal post are we. Did I hear you complain about Clinton or Obama and the spending they did? Actually, if you have ever followed any of my posts you would know that I have complained about the spending. So what programs do you want to be reduced or cut to balance the budget? It is sad the US borrows about $0.40 of every dollars spent.

You can complain about Trump. It seems past Presidents also signed budgets that were not balanced. We can blame Congress for that. All parties.

 

[Floridafan]

Moving the goal post are we. Did I hear you complain about Clinton or Obama and the spending they did? Actually, if you have ever followed any of my posts you would know that I have complained about the spending. So what programs do you want to be reduced or cut to balance the budget? It is sad the US borrows about $0.40 of every dollars spent.

You can complain about Trump. It seems past Presidents also signed budgets that were not balanced. We can blame Congress for that. All parties.

Just like in the Bush days, when you have a government in complete control of the Republican Party, there is no one else to blame but them. Isnt the GOP supposed to be the party of balanced budgets, and less spending?

 

[OscarLevant]

No... they should be sent back to Mexico City, or the other nearest port of entry in Mexico, where they can apply for asylum there.

That is international law.

They must apply at the “first safe country”.

Mexico comes before the US.

Send the families back to Mexico.

That is their language and culture. From there, they can visit one of our friendly US Embassies, and apply for entry to the US if they so chose.

I believe they are allowed to apply for asylum at an American Port Of Entry, and on immigration, American law supersedes the international

 

[mike2810]

Just like in the Bush days, when you have a government in complete control of the Republican Party, there is no one else to blame but them. Isnt the GOP supposed to be the party of balanced budgets, and less spending?

Thanks for not answering my question regarding what should be cut/reduced to balance the budget.
Since I am not a Republican nor a Democrat, you would have to get someone from the Republican party to answer your question. As I said, Congress (both Parties) are responsible for the budget and our increasing debt. The spending/debt should be continued in a new thread.

I agree with the OP. If the illegals entered the US from Mexico, send them back to Mexico. If they entered from Canada, send them back to Canada.

 

[Floridafan]

Thanks for not answering my question regarding what should be cut/reduced to balance the budget.
Since I am not a Republican nor a Democrat, you would have to get someone from the Republican party to answer your question. As I said, Congress (both Parties) are responsible for the budget and our increasing debt. The spending/debt should be continued in a new thread.

I agree with the OP. If the illegals entered the US from Mexico, send them back to Mexico. If they entered from Canada, send them back to Canada.

Send them back, but only after they have completed our legal system. You just can't send them back 5 minutes after they arrive.
How is the Democratic Party responsible for the debt this administration has incurred?

 

[CriticalThought]

No... they should be sent back to Mexico City, or the other nearest port of entry in Mexico, where they can apply for asylum there.

That is international law.

They must apply at the “first safe country”.

Mexico comes before the US.

Send the families back to Mexico.

That is their language and culture. From there, they can visit one of our friendly US Embassies, and apply for entry to the US if they so chose.

You cannot apply for asylum at a US embassy or consulate.

 

[mike2810]

Send them back, but only after they have completed our legal system. You just can't send them back 5 minutes after they arrive.
How is the Democratic Party responsible for the debt this administration has incurred?

Your short view of the debt is telling. Your partisan view of the budget process is telling. All members of Congress (House and Senate) are responsible for the debt. Just take a look at some of the Democrats riders attached to funding bills. Yes, Republicans also attach riders.

You seem to forget that the US was in debt before the current President.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

No... they should be sent back to Mexico City, or the other nearest port of entry in Mexico, where they can apply for asylum there.

That is international law.

They must apply at the “first safe country”.

Mexico comes before the US.

Send the families back to Mexico.

That is their language and culture. From there, they can visit one of our friendly US Embassies, and apply for entry to the US if they so chose.

No, that's not right. I discussed this with another poster the other day. "First safe country" refers to an agreement between Canada and the US, an informal agreement among the G20, and a ruling by the EU's supreme court. It has nothing to do with the issues at the US's southern border.

Out of honest curiosity, where did you hear this?

 

[Floridafan]

Your short view of the debt is telling. Your partisan view of the budget process is telling. All members of Congress (House and Senate) are responsible for the debt. Just take a look at some of the Democrats riders attached to funding bills. Yes, Republicans also attach riders.

You seem to forget that the US was in debt before the current President.

Face it, all we heard for the last 8 years was how democrats were spending out odf control and now that republicans are in complete control they have made spending even worse, they have made our national debt even worse. I thought republicans were the party of lower debt, balanced budgets, and less spending.

 

[VanceMack]

So you think our current immigration system is okay? You think it's okay that thousands of families remain separated and that it will be very difficult to reunite many of them? Or that children have to represent themselves in immigration courts? And yes, before you try the pathetic "Obama did it too" comeback, I am well aware of the second article's publication date. I had some serious issues with Obama's immigration policies. But tRump is just making a bad situation worse. "He alone can fix it"--remember??

Geeez...

Those thousands of families are separated because they broke the law. Aree you ****ting yourself over the literally hundreds of thousands of foster childrten who are in foster care because their parents either broke the law or because they did otherwise stupid things and put their children at risk?

Your fake poutrage schtick is boring. We have already established you literally dont give the first **** about those children as anything more than a political tool in your impotent "I hate Trump" routine. We established quite clearly that you and people like you never said a ****ing word when 70 thousand children a year were being separated from their families.

 

[Grand Mal]

No, that's not right. I discussed this with another poster the other day. "First safe country" refers to an agreement between Canada and the US, an informal agreement among the G20, and a ruling by the EU's supreme court. It has nothing to do with the issues at the US's southern border.

Out of honest curiosity, where did you hear this?

Canada is considering bailing on that agreement. We've been getting so many refugees crossing from the US that our facilities and personnel can't cope with the flood.

 

[poweRob]

No... they should be sent back to Mexico City, or the other nearest port of entry in Mexico, where they can apply for asylum there.

That is international law.

They must apply at the “first safe country”.

Mexico comes before the US.

Send the families back to Mexico.

That is their language and culture. From there, they can visit one of our friendly US Embassies, and apply for entry to the US if they so chose.

If you believe Mexico is so safe, then why are you so prone to turning away their immigrants?

 

[jimbo]

They would need to have come from Mexico City to be sent back to it.

Zimmer has an interesting point. Which you missed.

The refugee doesn't get to choose his preferred country. Rather must apply at the nearest safe country (assuming he is correct). Since most travel through Mexico and Mexico is considered safe. They apply in Mexico.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

International law does not say they must apply at the first safe country - that is a myth.

It's sort of true in limited foreign cases, but it has nothing to do with the US. I'm really curious about which media outlets are spreading this.

 

[Xelor]

Zimmer has an interesting point. Which you missed.

The refugee doesn't get to choose his preferred country. Rather must apply at the nearest safe country (assuming he is correct). Since most travel through Mexico and Mexico is considered safe. They apply in Mexico.

Red:
I don't know that the other member's remarks are correct.

• UNHCR stresses that the principles of the first country of asylum and safe third country should be regarded as practices that have evolved between states, rather than principles based on international refugee law.
  • AFAIK, the UNHCR guidelines and practices apply only to the EU. One cannot cite and EU-applicable convention for one thing (in this case immigration) and disregard whatever other EU conventions when it suits one.
  • Even accepting the "first safe country" practice as applicable to the U.S., as the John-Tanton-founded (see also: The Hill) conservative Center for Immigration Studies notes,
    • "Here in the United States this international principle of demanding that migrants claim asylum or refuge at the first safe country they reach is mostly honored in the breach. Everyone pays lip service to it, but no one, least of all our pusillanimous political or government leaders, really expects America to demand that the international convention be scrupulously adhered to, either by those who are allegedly seeking shelter from harm, or by the countries those migrants use as doormats en route to America as the nation of economic choice."

Pink:
Even applying the "first safe country" notion, it's not clear to me that Mexico is a safe place for some of the immigrants seeking "safe harbor" (asylum).

• FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS OF REFUGEES FLEEING EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, AND MEXICO ("Women on the Run")
• Oct 2015 -- Salvadorans flee danger, but find more of it in Mexico
  • [A] couple arrived at the hostel in Arriaga, a dusty town in Mexico's southern state of Chiapas, after a gruelling 11-day journey by land and sea from the Guatemalan border. The first leg of their passage through Guatemala was relatively uneventful. The trouble started as soon as they crossed the picturesque River Suchiate into Mexico. ... Halfway to Arriaga, their journey took an unexpected twist towards the stormy Pacific Ocean, which lies a few kilometres west of the disused railway. Drug traffickers have long exploited this vast, isolated coastline, and now migrants are turning to the ocean in hopes of avoiding trouble on dry land.
    
    "A fisherman warned us about a village up ahead where migrants have supposedly been killed by criminals. He took a group of us in his small boat. The sea was rough but we were lucky: He was kind and only wanted 100 pesos ($6) for the 45-minute journey," said Aguirre.
    
    But their ordeal was not yet over. They were walking deep in the jungle, on the final stretch towards Arriaga, when two men armed with pistols jumped out at them.
    
    "They threatened to kill us and took everything we had: cell phones, clothes, and cash. They made me take off my clothes to make sure I wasn't hiding anything."
    
    From Arriaga, it is a gruelling 12-hour walk through more dense jungle and hectares of mango groves to a small town called Chahuites in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. Irineo Mujica, the director of NGO Pueblos Sin Fronteras (Towns without Borders), came to Chahuites a year ago with reports of injured and desperate migrants sleeping rough in parks and churches.
    
    "We found mattresses alongside the railway tracks where women were being raped by men from the surrounding area. We started documenting violations, and then set up this hostel because more and more injured and assaulted migrants kept turning up - we couldn't cope," said Mujica.
    
    Between 25 and 50 people arrive here each day looking for shelter. Eighty percent have suffered violence en route, most commonly as part of armed robberies. The hostel has also documented numerous rapes, of both men and women, and disappearances.
• March 2018 -- MS13 Feud Spreads to Mexico, but Gang’s Presence Remains Limited

 

[Phys251]

I didn't miss anything. Sorry, you must have missed the part they came in illegally. Are you ok with the parents of said "children" either not knowing they crossed the border illegally or sent them across illegally?

If I could make it happen the courts would not be tied up with illegal entry cases for the most part. I would have the laws changed that if caught coming across illegally, the person is shipped back across the border asap.

Call me cold hearted, but I am not buying the poor children stance anymore. I also find it interesting to watch some of the AZ Congressional reps play the poor children card. Yet, none of them state how the US should pay for all of the influx that is going on.

So if a family jaywalks and is caught, would you have them forcibly separated? See, I don't think y'all's underlying motivation is the law. I think you use the law as smokescreen for...something else. You're probably a smart guy; you can figure out what that something else is without my help.

At least you admit your cold-heartedness.

 

[Phys251]

Geeez...

Those thousands of families are separated because they broke the law.

Stop. That is factually incorrect. Prior to tRump's policy, such separations were rare. Not unheard of, but rare.

Unless you believe that tRump can singlehandedly undo a law with an Executive Order? Which is it, VanceMack?

Aree you ****ting yourself over the literally hundreds of thousands of foster childrten who are in foster care because their parents either broke the law or because they did otherwise stupid things and put their children at risk?

Here come the deflections.

Your fake poutrage schtick is boring. We have already established you literally dont give the first **** about those children as anything more than a political tool in your impotent "I hate Trump" routine. We established quite clearly that you and people like you never said a ****ing word when 70 thousand children a year were being separated from their families.

And that is some ultra-high-resolution projection right there. Like, IMAX-level projection. 10-out-of-10, absolutely beautiful.

This is why we can't have a civil conversation, Vance. :doh

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Zimmer has an interesting point. Which you missed.

The refugee doesn't get to choose his preferred country. Rather must apply at the nearest safe country (assuming he is correct). Since most travel through Mexico and Mexico is considered safe. They apply in Mexico.

Zimmer is not correct. The entire conversation needs to be recalibrated.