• 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!

Youngest Migrants Held in 'Tender Age' Shelters

No one is coached and before an IJ you don't just tell your story and they believe you. You have to bring evidence. What is telling is that while Obama was president, he implemented catch and release for families, these families showed up in the 90% range.


...I don't know where you get these numbers from...


Eh, more like the 60% - 70% range. But I see why you said 90%, it wasn't that far from accurate. The gap was only between reality and the moon.

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5909481/60-to-70-percent-of-central-american-kids-are-showing-up-to

According to following:

The Bipartisan Policy Center also expressed skepticism about the 90 percent figure. "Based on the federal data we’ve seen, we know that between 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 80 percent of all immigrants showed up for their court appearance," said Rosemarie Calabro Tully, a spokeswoman for the group. She later passed us the estimate Osuna gave to the Senate committee

Read more:

Sen. Jeff Flake says 90 percent of immigrants given court dates fail to show up | PolitiFact
 
Last edited:

The only problem I have with your source is that the person presenting this source. The person presenting this source 1) probably didn't bother researching the information in the source, 2) probably didn't bother reading the source fully, or 3) simply nitpicked pieces from the source.

You missed this piece of information:

Between 2003 and 2012, the percentage of all immigrants who failed to appear in court after being released has bounced between 20 percent and 40 percent, settling in at about 30 percent at the end of that time span

Sen. Jeff Flake says 90 percent of immigrants given court dates fail to show up | PolitiFact

The Bipartisan Policy Center is a think tank, but that is not the issue with the source. The issue is the primary source, which comes from the Center for Refugee Settlements, which reports that 30% - 40% immigrants released between 2002 and 2013 due to being released.

This is the source of that report:

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-cont...Migration by the Numbers June 2014.pdf#page=8

and this is the image:

Immigration.png


My source collects its data from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which collects immigration court data and deportation proceedings in all 50 states. TRAC is run by the University of Syracuse, so I think I can trust this source. They have immigration statistics that are more than a decade old, which pretty much has the same figures.

30 - 40% released from federal custody fail to show up to their court hearing, NOT 20% - 30%

U.S. Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Courts

I'm sure you can make it sound "better" if you change the time period or the classification of individuals in custody, but there are ways of making an argument without misrepresenting the information.
 
Last edited:
The only problem I have with your source is that the person presenting this source. The person presenting this source 1) probably didn't bother researching the information in the source, 2) probably didn't bother reading the source fully, or 3) simply nitpicked pieces from the source.

You missed this piece of information:

The Bipartisan Policy Center is a think tank, but that is not the issue with the source. .....

I have a bigger problem.

Why do we have a mandatory bed quota for ICE spending $2 Billion a year on detention facilliities when ankle monitors for migrants could save our taxpayers millions of dollars?

From the following report:

Media Coverage of the ICE Detention Bed Quota July 12, 2016

The immigration detention bed quota,
contained in U.S. Department of Homeland Security appropriations language, is considered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and some members of Congress to require ICE to fill 34,000 detention beds daily at an annual cost to taxpayers of $2 billion. This approach – which exists in no other law enforcement context – prevents ICE from saving taxpayer dollars by using less costly, effective alternatives when detention is not necessary, and guarantees a specific – and arbitrary – detention level, regardless of actual need.
...

The Deportation System’s ‘Lock-up Quota’ Is Just As Bad as It Sounds By Michelle Chen – July 11, 2016
Law enforcement is in the business of dealing with insecurity. But the one thing that’s always secure about America’s law-enforcement system is the number of immigrants it imprisons each day. The government has written into law the number of non-citizens it seeks to deprive of freedom at any given moment: 34,000.


A study by Detention Watch Network (DWN) and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)explores the social impacts
of the perverse incentive of the so-called “lockup quota” of 34,000 designated “beds” for immigrant detainees.

The system locks in a federal funding stream and sustains jobs, commercial contracts, and a political consensus around the need for ever more “border security.” So the detention industry banks on 34,000 bodies, culled from a bottomless supply of more than 11 million undocumented migrants, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local police round up and funnel in potential deportees.


DWN and CCR argue that “Local lockup quotas that serve to protect the bottom line of private companies thus incentivize the imprisonment of immigrants.”
The yearly spending—about $2 billion for fiscal 2016—and the headcount are the two numbers that matter. The deportation machine has fueled the churn of warm bodies, which it prioritizes over concerns that other law enforcement systems must deal with like the actual charges against detainees, their due process rights, or questions of their safety or the public’s.

Read more:

https://www.immigrantjustice.org/si...iaCoverage_DetentionBedMandate_2016_07_12.pdf
 
Last edited:
The only problem I have with your source ...

My source collects its data from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which collects immigration court data and deportation proceedings in all 50 states. TRAC is run by the University of Syracuse, so I think I can trust this source. They have immigration statistics that are more than a decade old, which pretty much has the same figures.



30 - 40% released from federal custody fail to show up to their court hearing, NOT 20% - 30%



U.S. Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Courts

I'm sure you can make it sound "better" if you change the time period or the classification of individuals in custody, but there are ways of making an argument without misrepresenting the information.

Your source only tracked Juvenile immigrants, not all ages of immigrates.

The graph also was regarding the state of Texas

graph from your link
Juveniles — Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings
Note: FY 2005 - FY 2017 includes unaccompanied juveniles]


And we were talking about the numbers during the Obama administration that’s why I used my source because it specifically used the years 2008 to 2012.
 
Last edited:
I have a bigger problem.

Why do we have a mandatory bed quota for ICE spending $2 Billion a year on detention facilliities when ankle monitors for migrants could save our taxpayers millions of dollars?

I suppose the easy answer to this would be there aren't enough resources devote to the hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants that cross the border illegally each year.

However, I'm not sure how you are certain that this will save money? Have you done any calculations?
 
Last edited:
Your source only tracked Juvenile immigrants, not all ages of immigrates.

You're misrepresenting information again...

Whether or not a child has been placed with a sponsor, all unaccompanied children that DHS transfers to ORR are subject to a formal removal proceeding. Children who are placed with a sponsor do not remain in government custody, creating the possibility that they may not appear for their hearing in immigration court. Specific figures on the rate at which unaccompanied children appear are not available. However, statistics from the Executive Office of Immigration Review show that between FY 2008 and FY 2012, roughly 70 to 80 percent of all immigrants who were released or never detained came to their court appearances, leaving 20 to 30 percent who failed to appear (Figure 8).

The graph also was regarding the state of Texas

graph from your link
Juveniles — Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings
Note: FY 2005 - FY 2017 includes unaccompanied juveniles][/B]

I can't really see the link, but regardless the graph I pulled is from source YOU provided. I merely dug deeper to find where politi-fact was getting its numbers from. So are you saying that there is something wrong with the information or not? If you're saying that there are issues with your source, maybe you should sort it out.


And we were talking about the numbers during the Obama administration that’s why I used my source because it specifically used the years 2008 to 2012.

That's nice, but how bad or good these figures were is not really relevant to the issue. The issue is, for as long as we've been recording these statistics, 30% - 40% of illegal immigrants have failed to show up to their court procedures.
 
I suppose the easy answer to this would be there aren't enough resources devote to the hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants that cross the border illegally each year.

However, I'm not sure how you are certain that this will save money? Have you done any calculations?

A gps anckle monitor costs about $6,000 a year. ( $500 a month) vs about $12,000 (@400 a night per person ) for family detention.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/04/5-things-to-know-about-ankle-monitors.html


The cost of detention facilities for families is a bit less than $300 in 2014 per night per person.

The cost of the new tent detention facilities for children is about $775 per child per night.


From the following:

WASHINGTON — The cost of holding migrant children who have been separated from their parents in newly created "tent cities" is $775 per person per night, according to an official at the Department of Health and Human Services — far higher than the cost of keeping children with their parents in detention centers or holding them in more permanent buildings.

The reason for the high cost, the official and several former officials told NBC News, is that the sudden urgency to bring in security, air conditioning, medical workers and other government contractors far surpasses the cost for structures that are routinely staffed.

At those prices, the additional cost to operate a 400-bed temporary structure for one month at capacity would be more than $5 million. The average stay for separated kids is nearly two months.

It costs much less to keep the children with their parents:

And keeping children with their parents in detention centers
like the one run by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement in Dilley, Texas cost $298 per resident per night, according to an agency estimate when it awarded the contract for the facility in 2014.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/i...cities-cost-more-keeping-migrant-kids-n884871
 
Last edited:
You're misrepresenting information again...





I can't really see the link, but regardless the graph I pulled is from source YOU provided. I merely dug deeper to find where politi-fact was getting its numbers from. So are you saying that there is something wrong with the information or not? If you're saying that there are issues with your source, maybe you should sort it out.

That's nice, but how bad or good these figures were is not really relevant to the issue. The issue is, for as long as we've been recording these statistics, 30% - 40% of illegal immigrants have failed to show up to their court procedures.

I was to referring to your graph from your link regarding Tracking immigrant Juveniles from Texas during the time period of 2005 to 2017.

U.S. Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Courts


Under President Obama the count of immigrants showing up for their hearing was higher because President Obama started using the gps ankle monitors.

From the following:

The White House,
after stating recently that it will look to expand alternatives to incarceration, has devised a cost-effective plan: ankle monitors. Instead of detaining illegal immigrants, especially families with young children, the federal government has decided that affixing these monitors to the ankles of immigrants is a practical, cheap, and relatively easy way to allow illegal immigrants to go about their daily routine, but also alert authorities if they attempt to flee.

It is a solution that, on the surface, would seem to satisfy both sides of the immigration debate. Immigration hawks can be confident that illegal aliens are not going to escape justice, and the cost to taxpayers is minimized. Meanwhile, supporters of illegal immigrants can rest assured that they are not being thrown in jail with hardened criminals and will have some freedom to live a normal life, save for a slight heaviness on one ankle. Clearly, ankle bracelets do not solve the problem, but they are a step in the right direction.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...ld-tender-age-shelters-51.html#post1068668651
 
Last edited:
A gps anckle monitor costs about $6,000 a year. ( $500 a month) vs about $12,000 (@400 a night per person ) for family detention.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/04/5-things-to-know-about-ankle-monitors.html


The cost of detention facilities for families is a bit less than $300 in 2014 per night per person.

The cost of the new tent detention facilities for children is about $775 per child per night.


From the following:



It costs much less to keep the children with their parents:


https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/i...cities-cost-more-keeping-migrant-kids-n884871

You're really sold on this idea, but something tells me you have fully thought this through.

What is the cost for maintenance? I don't expect this technology to ruin efficiently during its duration...

You haven't considered the technological infrastructure required to maintain the gps signal of thousands of the supposed millions of illegal immigrants under "house arrest." What is the cost of maintaining this?

You also need capital infrastructure you need to keep these people within a given area, considering they are under electronic surveillance. What is the cost of doing that?

Would you use an ankle monitor on only serious offenders or someone without risk of being offenders?

How many ICE agents to you employ to monitor x number of immigrants using these monitors, and how much would you pay them to do it?

It didn't take me very long to come up with reasons why this wouldn't be as cost effective as you believe.
 
I was to referring to your graph from your link regarding Tracking immigrant Juveniles from Texas during the time period of 2005 to 2017.

U.S. Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Courts

You can choose more than one state to look at statistics... You do know this right?


Under President Obama the count of immigrants showing up for their hearing was higher because President Obama started using the gps ankle monitors.


Not that much higher. It's gone from a peak of 80% to settling back down to 70%.
 
You're really sold on this idea, but something tells me you have fully thought this through.

What is the cost for maintenance? I don't expect this technology to ruin efficiently during its duration...

You haven't considered the technological infrastructure required to maintain the gps signal of thousands of the supposed millions of illegal immigrants under "house arrest." What is the cost of maintaining this?

You also need capital infrastructure you need to keep these people within a given area, considering they are under electronic surveillance. What is the cost of doing that?

Would you use an ankle monitor on only serious offenders or someone without risk of being offenders?

How many ICE agents to you employ to monitor x number of immigrants using these monitors, and how much would you pay them to do it?

It didn't take me very long to come up with reasons why this wouldn't be as cost effective as you believe.

I don’t know what you have against ankle monitors but they are much a much cheaper alternative than a detention center or a prison.


Didn’t you read the link I posted?

They have been using gps ankle monitors for years for thousands of people. I am sure maintence was including in the cost. I was talking about the whole cost arrest not just the actual cost of the ankle monitor.

We could use those only for families who are prescreed and are not concidered a danger to others nor a flight risk.

Since 2013, ICE officers have been using a computer algorithm, called the Risk Classification System, to help them assess whether an immigrant is a danger to the community or a flight risk

From my link:

1. It’s Cheaper Than Putting People In Prison.

The cost of incarcerating a person far outweighs the cost of an ankle monitor and house arrest. Putting a person in prison can cost over $20,000 a year, while house arrest only costs about $6,000 per year.


https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/04/5-things-to-know-about-ankle-monitors.html
 
Last edited:
You can choose more than one state to look at statistics... You do know this right?


Under President Obama the count of immigrants showing up for their hearing was higher because President Obama started using the gps ankle monitors.



Not that much higher. It's gone from a peak of 80% to settling back down to 70%.

Actually with use of the ankle monitors this article says it was much higher.

Now, that might require that they release those individuals with an ankle bracelet and a court date from custody. But, you know, I will tell you that in my experience, 99 percent - or 96 depending upon which statistic you're looking at - of the people who are placed on an ankle bracelet actually show up at their hearing in the immigration court.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/6223...migrant-family-separations-could-be-permanent
 
Last edited:
I don’t know what you have against ankle monitors but they are much a much cheaper alternative than a detention center or a prison.

That's nice, but what about the other factors that I have addressed. These factors could be one of several reasons why ICE does not use ankle monitors for every immigrant, rather than the case-by-case bases they are currently implementing?

Didn’t you read the link I posted?

They have been using gps ankle monitors for years for thousands of people. I am sure maintence was including in the cost. I was talking about the whole cost arrest not just the actual cost of the ankle monitor.

From my link:

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/04/5-things-to-know-about-ankle-monitors.html

You do understand that there is something called implicit and explicit cost, correct? If you do, then you understand that there are cost directly associated with using an ankle monitor, which is just $6,000 (which includes may include maintenance?). There are also implicit cost, such as capital infrastructure, labor hours, technological infrastructure (which involves also involves installation and maintenance), and a few others.

You seem to have all the answers, but yet, you have difficulty answer my simply (yet legitimate) questions? Do you know the cost pertaining to these factors I have mentioned? If not, do you at least concede that perhaps these factors are the reason why ICE can only afford to use this technology on a few thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.
 
Trump should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

That is so much horse****; he isn't even close to committing those kinds of crimes. You're losing the fight against Trump, and it's tearing you up inside.
 
That's nice, but what about the other factors that I have addressed. These factors could be one of several reasons why ICE does not use ankle monitors for every immigrant, rather than the case-by-case bases they are currently implementing?



You do understand that there is something called implicit and explicit cost, correct? If you do, then you understand that there are cost directly associated with using an ankle monitor, which is just $6,000 (which includes may include maintenance?). There are also implicit cost, such as capital infrastructure, labor hours, technological infrastructure (which involves also involves installation and maintenance), and a few others.

You seem to have all the answers, but yet, you have difficulty answer my simply (yet legitimate) questions? Do you know the cost pertaining to these factors I have mentioned? If not, do you at least concede that perhaps these factors are the reason why ICE can only afford to use this technology on a few thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

Maybe I don’t have all the answers but I have done a lot of research on this subject.

From the following National Review Article:

The White House, after stating recently that it will look to expand alternatives to incarceration, has devised a cost-effective plan: ankle monitors. Instead of detaining illegal immigrants, especially families with young children, the federal government has decided that affixing these monitors to the ankles of immigrants is a practical, cheap, and relatively easy way to allow illegal immigrants to go about their daily routine, but also alert authorities if they attempt to flee.

It is a solution that, on the surface, would seem to satisfy both sides of the immigration debate. Immigration hawks can be confident that illegal aliens are not going to escape justice, and the cost to taxpayers is minimized. Meanwhile, supporters of illegal immigrants can rest assured that they are not being thrown in jail with hardened criminals and will have some freedom to live a normal life, save for a slight heaviness on one ankle. Clearly, ankle bracelets do not solve the problem, but they are a step in the right direction.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014...elp-solve-immigration-crisis-christine-sisto/
 
And where are the statistics referenced in the article? Those statistics seemed to have been missing...

From the National Review Article Wittenberg in 2014 when crossing the board illegally was a misdemeanor not a felony,
does not have the stats but makes the claim ...

According to the Times, “advocates and federal officials differ on how often the tracking monitors should be used.” But there’s not much disagreement on the effectiveness of the method. Nearly 100 percent of those wearing the monitors have shown up to their court dates.

However, some critics of the plan say that using the monitors is akin to treating illegal immigrants like criminals. A report by the Immigration Rights Clinic of the Rutgers School of Law-Newark has published a report about the ankle bracelets entitled “Freed But Not Free.” The report suggests that a “grievance” system for the program participants be enacted as well as a more “user-friendly” system for the comfort of the illegal immigrants that includes shorter wait times and the relocation of Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) offices in safe areas close to public transportation. And in case you’ve forgotten, the “participants” are people who have broken the law.
...

Arizona Republican Senator John McCain recently said he would like to see ankle monitors on all illegal immigrants awaiting deportation hearings. Monitoring with the ankle bracelets has also been suggested as one possible solution to the border crisis, where fewer than 900 of the 55,000 children have been reunited with their families in their home countries. Again, this may be the most cost effective and practical option. Enrolling an immigrant in the ankle monitoring program costs about $4.50 a day, while the Department of Health and Human Services has said that it spends between $250 and $1,000 a day placing abandoned children with family members.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2014...elp-solve-immigration-crisis-christine-sisto/
 
Last edited:
Here is a video where an:

Immigration lawyer: Ankle monitors a no-brainer
Anderson Cooper 360

Javier Gonzalez, a father of three living in Palm Beach, Florida, is facing deportation to Mexico and being separated from his family after originally coming to the US at 15 years old and wearing an ankle monitor issued by immigration officers. CNN's Randi Kayereports.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/26/ankle-bracelet-monitor-case-kaye-pkg.cnn
 
It looks like the Trump administration is going to use ankle monitors for families.

The tearful reunions — ordered by a court in California — came as the government said that it would release hundreds of migrant families wearing ankle bracelet monitors into the United States, effectively returning to the “catch and release” policy that President Trump promised to eliminate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-administration-catch-and-release-migrants.html
 
Back
Top Bottom