• 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!

Ted Cruz introducing legislation to keep migrant families together

If someone, republican easier, produces a low cost bill with no frills or tricks, they'll have to fight off co-sponsors.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If they couldn't be bothered to go to the embassy or consulate in their own country and request asylum, then why should we be bothered to even consider their claim when they show up here. Further they went through at least one country that could have accepted their claim. I am not interested in their claims.
Click to expand...

Basic human decency? Shining light on the hill?

Right, the new motto for the party of Christian values is "**** you losers! We don't want you here!"
 
Winston said:
I don't understand begrudging someone for wanting a better life for themselves and their families.
Click to expand...

It's because you have empathy and basic human decency. What is wrong with you?
 
PirateMk1 said:
I am not begrudging them a thing. If they have a true asylum request there are embassies, and consulates to which they can go to make that request. Otherwise get in the line fill the paperwork out like all the other people who cam here legally.
Click to expand...

And the law allows them to show up here and make a claim, at a legal point of entry or otherwise. They're not breaking any law by crossing the border and applying. You're arbitrarily saying the only way acceptable to you is at an embassy or consulate. That's fine, but it's not the law and no one else is obligated in any way to care about your arbitrary preferences.
 
Mycroft said:
Good.

Now...let's see who's against it.
Click to expand...

Trump and his wild eyed supporters will likely be against it. Cruz better tread softly, as he already faced the wrath of the GOP base when he refused to endorse Trump at the GOP convention.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
We should really just say if you attempt to cross the border illegally you've automatically forfeited any right to an asylum claim, you can only make a claim by presenting yourself either at an official port of entry, embassy, consulate, military base or docked warship and requesting it from an official of the US Government and if you do not and instead try to make it over the border you can scream asylum all you want, you're being processed for removal.
Click to expand...

And if they have a valid claim, too bad? So sad you'll be murdered or whatever in your home, but you know, rules...
 
JasperL said:
And the law allows them to show up here and make a claim, at a legal point of entry or otherwise. They're not breaking any law by crossing the border and applying. You're arbitrarily saying the only way acceptable to you is at an embassy or consulate. That's fine, but it's not the law and no one else is obligated in any way to care about your arbitrary preferences.
Click to expand...

The law says they may make their claim at a legal border crossing, not just any part of the border. Most of these border jumpers were caught with coyotes and acting as mules.
 
American said:
Yeah, and a Republican introduced it. What have Democrats introduced?
Click to expand...

All Senate Democrats now support a bill that would prohibit border separations
WASHINGTON — West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin on Monday became the 49th Democrat to sign onto a bill intended to halt family separations for immigrants accused of trying to cross the border illegally.

Every Senate Democrat is now a co-sponsor of the legislation which would prohibit children from being separated from their parents within 100 miles of the U.S. border except for instances of abuse, neglect or other specific circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
As I understand it, it mandates that they be kept together. NRO seems to like it.

Per the Press Release, the intent is to:


Double the number of federal immigration judges, from roughly 375 to 750.
Authorize new temporary shelters, with accommodations to keep families together.
Mandate that illegal immigrant families must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children.
Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases, so that—within 14 days—those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum, and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries.​
Click to expand...

let's hope that it's something good. this holding kids hostage thing has pissed me off significantly.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, what's in it for Cruz?
Click to expand...

It's to counter all the national press/media exposure his democratic opponent got from leading the Father's Day march in front of a children's detention facility yesterday. Cruz could envision the tv ad attacks being used against his re-election bid in November, and scrambled to join the fray on the side of "righteous outrage" before it was too late. :)
 
Perotista said:
Cruz has a 6-11 point lead in the four latest polls. 3 of them taken in May which one was the 11 point lead. Here is the latest poll:

http://endcitizensunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Texas-Senate-Public-Memo-061418.pdf

It puts Cruz up by six released on 14 June. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points. So Cruz may be up by as many as 9 or only up by 3. The problem for O'Rourke is there are currently only 8% undecided. So he better hope it's only 3 points he has to make up. I doubt O'Rourke will win, but the race is competitive.
Click to expand...

By how much have Democrats been outperforming polling?
 
azgreg said:
I get all that but the law also allows them to start the process at a legal port of entry.
Click to expand...

The ports of entry were blocked by the Border Patrol. Immigrants were not allowed to enter a legal port of entry; thus they had to go around the Border Patrol blockade, were promptly arrested, and their kids were whipped away from them.
 
DiAnna said:
The ports of entry were blocked by the Border Patrol. Immigrants were not allowed to enter a legal port of entry; thus they had to go around the Border Patrol blockade, were promptly arrested, and their kids were whipped away from them.
Click to expand...

We already covered that.
 
DiAnna said:
It's to counter all the national press/media exposure his democratic opponent got from leading the Father's Day march in front of a children's detention facility yesterday. Cruz could envision the tv ad attacks being used against his re-election bid in November, and scrambled to join the fray on the side of "righteous outrage" before it was too late. :)
Click to expand...

The Media has been HAMMERING this issue too. For good reason. And I believe they should hammer it, nonstop, until the policy is reversed or outlawed.
 
azgreg said:
We already covered that.
Click to expand...

Oops! I replied then continued reading and saw that. Damn, you're quick; I was just coming back to do an Edit, lol!
 
PirateMk1 said:
The law says they may make their claim at a legal border crossing, not just any part of the border. Most of these border jumpers were caught with coyotes and acting as mules.
Click to expand...

It doesn't require them to make a claim at a legal border crossing. Sorry. They have a year after arrival to make a claim, and it can be after they've been detained trying to cross illegally. Short summary here: U.S. system for refugee, asylum seekers explained - US news - Life | NBC News

And as you can see in posts on this thread, the problem with requiring the claim be made at a legal border crossing is when they try to apply there, they are turned away.
 
DiAnna said:
Oops! I replied then continued reading and saw that. Damn, you're quick; I was just coming back to do an Edit, lol!
Click to expand...

Gotta keep up owl. We're big boys here playing big boy games. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.








:mrgreen:
 
JasperL said:
That's my concern with the bill - the 14 day deadline. I don't know how it's possible to process a claim that fast and not have the decisions about asylum be more or less arbitrary, depending on who had their coffee that morning or whatever.
Click to expand...

Most asylum cases are rightly denied because of lack of evidence. It makes sense to spend more for courts, judges and staff than to hold folks (feed and house 'families') for longer times when most (the vast majority) are not going to stay under asylum anyway.

The odds that demorats will agree to the Cruz bill are slim because a fix (resulting in more rapid deportation for the majority) is not what they want - they want the current chaos to continue so that they can bash republicants over it and more illegal immigrants will get to stay under the alternative catch and release 'system'.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Most asylum cases are rightly denied because of lack of evidence. It makes sense to spend more for courts, judges and staff than to hold folks (feed and house 'families') for longer times when most (the vast majority) are not going to stay under asylum anyway.

The odds that demorats will agree to the Cruz bill are slim because a fix (resulting in more rapid deportation for the majority) is not what they want - they want the current chaos to continue so that they can bash republicants over it and more illegal immigrants will get to stay under the alternative catch and release 'system'.
Click to expand...

Personally I think it should be a UN issue and handles the same way refugees are handled.
 
JasperL said:
It's a neat trick. Prevent them from crossing at ports of entry, then charge them with a crime when they are desperate and sneak across. Bad faith at every step, and the worst is by committing a crime by crossing illegally, they're separated from their kids. Good Job ICE!
Click to expand...

Asylum seekers should be required to apply at a consulate...not at the border. That way they can be processed without entering the US. They'll be on the hook for their own survival until they are BROUGHT into the US.
 
beefheart said:
You know its bad when a drooling talibornagain moron like Cruz is against it.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. It's Cruz's bill, why would he be against it?
 
azgreg said:
Personally I think it should be a UN issue and handles the same way refugees are handled.
Click to expand...

The last thing that I want is for the UN to be able to declare alleged foreign "gang crime" victims to become refugees. It is terrible that some countries lack any semblance of law and order but to use that as a free pass to move millions to the USA under UN authority would be a total disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom