Ted Cruz introducing legislation to keep migrant families together

[ttwtt78640]

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!

Why would Central Americans be desperate to leave Mexico when they chose to enter it? Is that because Mexico, unlike the US, is free to refuse them asylum?

 

[azgreg]

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.

What I like about the idea is the UN does the bulk of the vetting before an individual even comes to the attention of the US.

 

[cpwill]

let's hope that it's something good. this holding kids hostage thing has pissed me off significantly.

...it is... literally the exact same as every single person in US detention, anywhere, who also has kids.


While I realize people are reacting highly emotively due to

I have to ask: What other crimes should be treated differently if the individual in question happens to be a parent?

 

[JasperL]

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.

Not sure why you're putting families in ' ' - the 'vast majority' are in fact families. And it's actually not the 'vast majority' who are denied per the stats posted on the thread - 60% get denied.

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'.

Attributing bad motives to democrats is boring.

"White nationalist Republicans just want to make sure no more brown people get in regardless of the threats to their families!!" See - that's stupid, and lazy.

 

[Perotista]

By how much have Democrats been outperforming polling?

I haven't really looked into that, most of the Democratic wins were at the state legislature level. Of course there was Alabama senate special election. The last 6 polls had Moore leading in 2, Jones leading in 3 and one was a tie. Of course Jones won by a bit less than 2%. A mix bag to say the least. Alabama was really unique and weird.

I don't know how much stock to put in polls of congressional races when they poll only 3-400 folks. Now you're talking about a margin of error of plus or minus of around 5 points or more. For Georgia's 6th, the polls accurately picked the two for the runoff and both Handel and Ossoff out performed their polling numbers. The last 6 polls for the runoff, three had Ossoff leading by an average of 2 points, one had Handel in the lead by two and the other two had the race tied.

I don't think it's the polling that the Democrats were out performing. It was Democrats out performing their usual numbers in deep red Republican districts. In Georgia's 6th, the Republican usually wins easily, 15-20 points. Ossoff lost by 4 in the runoff.

 

[JasperL]

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.

Again, that might be your arbitrary preference, but it's not the law in this reality, so why should anyone care about your arbitrary preferences. We're discussing current events under current law, in this reality, which allows them to apply at ports of entry, or even after getting caught at a non-port of entry.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What I like about the idea is the UN does the bulk of the vetting before an individual even comes to the attention of the US.

I don't trust UN vetting at all. The UN Human Rights Council contains Cuba, China, Venezeula and Saudi Arabia - what does that tell you about the UN's judgement?

 

[JasperL]

Why would Central Americans be desperate to leave Mexico when they chose to enter it? Is that because Mexico, unlike the US, is free to refuse them asylum?

I'm not sure what the point of your question is. I don't really care what the policies are in Mexico - we live in the U.S. and are addressing U.S. law and Trump policies that have turned it into a cruel hoax on asylum seekers.

 

[azgreg]

I don't trust UN vetting at all. The UN Human Rights Council contains Cuba, China, Venezeula and Saudi Arabia - what does that tell you about the UN's judgement?

They've done just fine in vetting refugees.

 

[Mycroft]

Again, that might be your arbitrary preference, but it's not the law in this reality, so why should anyone care about your arbitrary preferences. We're discussing current events under current law, in this reality, which allows them to apply at ports of entry, or even after getting caught at a non-port of entry.

I'm aware of current law. But current law is the problem and nobody likes it. I presented a solution. That's all.

 

[trouble13]

Cruz should certainly be sympathetic, as that surname doesn't sound very Native American. hopefully his bill just prevents Trump and perjury elf from splitting up families.

Cruz is cuban

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Fair play.

Trump is a petulant baby. If he senses opposition to his policy he takes it as an insult. And if he doesn't get his wall he will throw a tantrum. This is why I think he will veto.

I don't think he would veto increased judges and deportation centers. The problem with the bill is that it does not address the issue in a significant way. The law still forces the gov to relocate children after 20 days. An increase in judges might help them make that deadline. The bigger problem is that they are reporting 12,000 children have come across the border and 10,000 of them have either done it illegally or are with an adult that they can not verify as their parent. So what do we do with those 10,000 kids?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

I'm aware of current law. But current law is the problem and nobody likes it. I presented a solution. That's all.

The current problem you quoted me making and ignored is that the Trump administration is making legitimate asylum claims impossible by blocking them from applying at ports of entry, as is required by the current law, then prosecuting them as criminals if they cross illegally, which requires them as intended to separate families at the border.

The question is what are legitimate asylum seekers supposed to do when complying with the law is made impossible by ICE thugs standing at the border and preventing them from complying?

 

[trouble13]

I get all that but the law also allows them to start the process at a legal port of entry.

They could also save themselves the trip by applying at their local embassy so that they are not homeless while they wait

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

...it is... literally the exact same as every single person in US detention, anywhere, who also has kids.

While I realize people are reacting highly emotively due to

I have to ask: What other crimes should be treated differently if the individual in question happens to be a parent?

But the 'crime' is generally a misdemeanor, and it's not common to lock up parents and separate kids for misdemeanors. If they catch a drug mule coming across with a load of cocaine or whatever, fine, that's understood, but you know damn well they're essentially separating families whose "crime" is crossing illegally, and it's to serve as a deterrent. We don't have to guess about that - Kelly told us this was the goal, make the price of crossing even for asylum is to get separated from your kids for weeks or months.

And worse the legal option - cross at a border, and present as an asylum cases - is being forcibly prevented by ICE thugs telling them they can't cross.

 

[Mycroft]

The current problem you quoted me making and ignored is that the Trump administration is making legitimate asylum claims impossible by blocking them from applying at ports of entry, as is required by the current law, then prosecuting them as criminals if they cross illegally, which requires them as intended to separate families at the border.

The question is what are legitimate asylum seekers supposed to do when complying with the law is made impossible by ICE thugs standing at the border and preventing them from complying?

They are supposed to wait...instead of taking the illegal route.

 

[JasperL]

They could also save themselves the trip by applying at their local embassy so that they are not homeless while they wait

So you're blaming them for following current law.... Got it. What where they thinking?

 

[azgreg]

They could also save themselves the trip by applying at their local embassy so that they are not homeless while they wait

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

You and I have no idea what these people are fleeing. It's very possible that the violence they are fleeing from is also keeping them from approaching an embassy or consulate.

 

[JasperL]

They are supposed to wait...instead of taking the illegal route.

Wait for what? Till someone moves the ICE thugs off the bridges and other ports of entry and lets them apply as the law requires?

 

[Winston]

I don't think he would veto increased judges and deportation centers. The problem with the bill is that it does not address the issue in a significant way. The law still forces the gov to relocate children after 20 days. An increase in judges might help them make that deadline. The bigger problem is that they are reporting 12,000 children have come across the border and 10,000 of them have either done it illegally or are with an adult that they can not verify as their parent. So what do we do with those 10,000 kids?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

could you link me to some source for these claims?

 

[trouble13]

There is a problem with the port of entry part though. People are being blocked from even getting close to one.

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylum-central-america/

Ok if that's true it's a legitimate complaint but the answer isn't crossing illegally. The answer requires a court decission

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Winston]

I don't think he would veto increased judges and deportation centers. The problem with the bill is that it does not address the issue in a significant way. The law still forces the gov to relocate children after 20 days. An increase in judges might help them make that deadline. The bigger problem is that they are reporting 12,000 children have come across the border and 10,000 of them have either done it illegally or are with an adult that they can not verify as their parent. So what do we do with those 10,000 kids?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Just so you understand my general perspective on this... my general attitude is let undocumented people stay, live, and work here. I by and large do not give one **** if someone has papers or not.

 

[CriticalThought]

They could also save themselves the trip by applying at their local embassy so that they are not homeless while they wait

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Um... you cannot apply for asylum outside the U.S. You have to be here or at a port of entry. What gave you the idea they could go to an embassy and apply?

 

[trouble13]

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.​

What happens if the court fails to meet the 14 day requirement?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[FreeWits]

https://www.chron.com/news/politics...cing-legislation-to-keep-migrant-13005089.php



I like it.

The children are already held only short-term, but making short-term shorter-term is a good thing. It'll cost money, but that's just what we have to do.