Political Oppo

"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin) 06/18/2018 at 18:59 • Filed to: None

9

20

This is the most level headed article on the family separation issue I’ve seen yet. This thread is for reasonable discussion only. Please keep this on the level. Also, I absolutely love the Border Patrol Tahoe’s.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Some economic migrants are using children as chits, but the problem is fixable — if Congress acts.

The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.

Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case.

A few points about all this:

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.

Children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases.

Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

In April, the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! :

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! as a favor or for profit.”

If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.

4) Congress can fix this. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed. Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly.

The missing piece here is Congress, but little outrage will be directed at it, and probably nothing will be done. And so our perverse system will remain in place and the crisis at the border will rumble on.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/18/2018 at 19:27

9

There was never a “crisis at the border” until we created one in the 80’s. Those “primarily young male” entrants were seasonal workers who returned home every year to bring money home to their families. After we raised the stakes of entering the states (again, in the 80’s) they stopped going home and instead brought their families here.

This was never an issue until we decided to view our border as an impenetrable barrier instead of an imaginary line.

Separating children from their parents is bad, but keeping them in cages without human contact is worthy of U.N. Sanctions.

cmill189 - sans Volvo > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/18/2018 at 19:28

10

Children being traumatized unnecessarily.

The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults.

Reasonable discussion?

Nibby > cmill189 - sans Volvo 06/18/2018 at 19:31

5

lies. there is nothing on the hook; therefore, no bait

cmill189 - sans Volvo > Nibby 06/18/2018 at 19:51

0

You shuddup, Nibbly Bibbly.

CompactLuxuryFan > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/18/2018 at 19:57

3

You should make it clearer that you copied the entire article and pasted it right under your own intro. I was very confused.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > CompactLuxuryFan 06/18/2018 at 20:04

9

He always does, it makes his shitposts look legit.

Spanfeller is a twat > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/18/2018 at 20:15

19

I do not believe the American government or Mr. Trump for that matter stand for justice here, but instead stand for punishment.

There is no such thing as a “level headed” conversation about keeping kids in cages, this isn’t a law, it’s the interpretation of a policy by AG Jeff Sessions.

Maybe I am a bit of a psychopath and I feel little about crime being carried out, maybe I am empathetic of criminals because I am not going to pretend I’m better than another human or that I’ll always be the one giving marching orders. I have empathy for them because I believe in change, and I believe that prisons should not be for punishment but for rehabilitation.

No matter how many times you have to try, you can’t give up on humans, because if you do, who is going to stand for you in your dark moments? We don’t own morality, maybe tomorrow you’re going to run a kid over by accident, and even if you’re the nicest person in town, a jury could send you to prison for it because to them you’re wasted.

This is how these children feel like: Waste. God, I know I don’t like making threats, but man. If those children grow up with psychological troubles, I don’t think they will look at white americans with a “level headed” approach. Because policies like these beat the sanity out of a person, and there isn’t a safety net: not mental health staff in the centres, who knows if they’ll ever go back to an actual home or if their parents will be able to support them

What is justice if searching for life is breaking the law? What is justice if the people you looked up to for so long suddenly betray the very concepts on which their nation was founded on?

I know the parents of these children broke the law, but as I explained before, it is a helluva lot more complex than saying “they are illegal immigrants.” No, man, they are, in large part, refugees. If you want to tackle illegal immigration go to the airports, go to the B2 Visas.

Oh, that kind of illegal immigration does make money to the US? well, then nevermind....

There are many ways that we, as the North American nations, can take care of this, there are many ways we could help the UN sort the immigration crisis, there are many reasons why the mere thought of a tough border is kind of outdated and in a sense unreasonable, but I’m merely observing the darkest hour of America as they do this.

Which is why I conclude that Trump doesn’t want justice, he wants some sort of wicked revenge, he wants to punish people for no other reason than for sadistic satisfaction, and again, we don’t know what will happen to these children, but this is simply not the way to handle it.

This is nothing short of a barbaric, antisocial, antidemocratic, inhumane practice. There is no way to defend it, and the very thought of seeing someone trying to defend it render me depressed, and it is sobering truth that the world order is changing for the worse.

Chariotoflove > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/18/2018 at 20:42

8

I have come to believe that there will never be a road to logical immigration reform in this country. This is because of the fundamental difference in what people believe a border should be. There are those who strongly believe we should know exactly who is crossing into our country, on an individual basis, and that we should regulate who enters based on specific criteria. Those are the folks who want strict regulation of existing immigration laws. At the other end, there are those who think there should be essentially no restriction on entry, that people should be able to come and go as they feel the need. To those folks, the border is an “imaginary line”, as cmill189 termed it (an accurately descriptive term for the philosophy, I think) and many will oppose any effort to enforce current immigration law and will not agree to any reform that includes border regulation.

In a perfect world, I like the idea of free crossing, where people can travel as they need to for the well being of themselves and their families. Unfortunately, while there are major incongruities between the laws of the countries sharing the border, it’s probably not feasible. For just one security-based example, if we and Mexico are not in lockstep agreement on policies to let foreign agents into our respective countries, then we cannot let just anybody from Mexico cross into the US. Mexico is a sovereign country, and if they were to allow entry of criminal or terrorist agents, or not have effective methods for preventing such entry (essentially the same thing), those agents would have immediate and unfettered access to the US without our law enforcement even knowing. In a post-9/11 world, I should think we have a valid interest in knowing.

Why don’t we just make everybody cross legally, but let in everyone who is not a criminal? Would that be so bad? I honestly don’t know. Where I live, I see dozens of Mexican immigrants around me daily. I’m sure that many of them are illegal. But they work, even if in the most menial jobs. If they were legal, they would have access to the social system with its protections and have visibility to our local government and law enforcement.

cmill189 - sans Volvo > Chariotoflove 06/18/2018 at 21:03

0

I think you’re quoting the wrong person.

fintail > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 06/18/2018 at 21:06

2

The UN already has the US rightfully listed for shithole poverty, I suppose that’s the next step.

DipodomysDeserti > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/18/2018 at 21:27

8

If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Paying a smuggler to traffic your children is also not excellent.

You and this author should probably educate yourselves on the subject before making blanket statements about the situations faced by these families. And by educate, I don’t mean read crappy articles or watch Fox News. Maybe go visit with some communities and actually talk to people who have come here. This stuff isn’t happening in some far off land, it’s happening right here.

There are plenty of families who pay to have their kids (usually teenagers) brought to the US as a last means of resort. Often times the parents have to stay behind in order to care for younger children or older family members. Also, lots of Mexican kids are bilingual, so it’s much easier to assimilate into society once they get here. 

I used to work with a kid who’s brother was threatened with kidnapping after a cartel started extorting his family. They were from a rural part of Sonora, and thus had no help from the local authorities.

Fuck anyone that says it was morally wrong for them to commit a misdemeanor in order to save their lives.

My grandfather immigrated to the US from Italy when he was sixteen. It’s a hard life, but the appreciation he had for this country after making it here and making a life for himself was immense. We are not a country of laws, we are a country of people. And except for those people who had this land stripped away from them, we all came here either as immigrants or as slaves.

I think Jesus said it best when he told his followers that the second greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. Then when some smartass asked him who his neighbor is, he came up with a nice little story of The Good Samaritan, which was really just a roundabout way of saying, “everyone is your neighbor, asshole”.

So if “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself”, is the second most important commandment behind “Love God” (dude is so insecure), and everyone is your neighbor, it’s seems to me that “acquire a work visa before entering the United States” might fall pretty far down the list of commandments. And we all know how Jesus felt about people who cherished laws over people (cough...Woes of the Pharisees...cough).

DipodomysDeserti > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 06/18/2018 at 21:30

4

Don’t forget that, also in the ‘80s, a certain Republican president helped fund right wing dictatorships in many of the countries people are fleeing from.

nermal > Spanfeller is a twat 06/18/2018 at 21:49

0

Legal actions against criminals (in general, not specifically related to immigration) are set up as both a punishment and a deterrent. The punishment for those that commit crimes is meant to stop others from committing them in the first place. Thinking along those lines, I think that you are partly correct with your views on border enforcement. The goal is to punish AND deter, with the added goal to catch those trafficking children with the intent to abuse them (or sell them to somebody that will abuse them).

That said, there is a line between making the process unpleasant, and making it inhumane.

Spanfeller is a twat > nermal 06/18/2018 at 22:01

0

There could be a focus on a shared border patrol, but as I said in the previous post, we’re far away from being able to cooperate in a way that would be beneficiary to both nations. There are serious issues at the border, enlarged by the astonishing economic capacity of US citizens, and the ridiculous security failures in Mexico.

The thing is, most crime is carried out without thinking about the consequences.. so punishing it is kind of irrelevant.

Lets scope it down to a traffic fine. Imagine you’re doing the limit on a 40 zone, and the light is turning yellow, but you’re in a big hurry, so you do 50 and cross the intersection on red. Does that make you a bad person or a desperate person?

In my honest opinion prisons should serve to protect citizens from criminals as they carry out the most intensive part of their rehabilitation, but not for punishment. I think the best quote on punishing criminals came from the parent of a kid in Norway that was killed in a mass shooting.

The reporter asked something along the lines of “would you’ve preferred it if your child had a gun?” and the man answers “I just wish he could’ve swam faster.” It might seem unrelated but this guy has no interest in revenge for the criminal, and thus his healing process due to the atrocious act was not burdened with a thirst for some sort of remuneration.

People tend to not get it, and that’s why we all remember the 1988 presidential debate and how Dukakis’ posture on the death penalty basically lost him the debate. We think revenge is a given and part of justice, but it just can’t be because both are abstract, both are subjective, but one has the backing of a society where the other only has the backing of an individual.

Chariotoflove > cmill189 - sans Volvo 06/18/2018 at 22:01

2

You are right. It was Bman76 who wrote that. I apologize for the misattribution.

nermal > Spanfeller is a twat 06/18/2018 at 22:27

0

You’ve touched on multiple issues, a lot of which may be simple concepts but in reality are extremely difficult to put in place.

Using your example of traffic fines is great to illustrate the punish & deter concept. If there’s a section of road where a lot of people are speeding, local police will set up a speed trap and start handing out tickets left and right. Eventually, writing speeding tickets to those that are caught will encourage others to obey the speed limits.

There are also different levels. Doing 5mph over the limit isn’t the same as doing 30mph over the limit through a school zone while drunk. Doing 30mph over the limit while driving to the hospital in an emergency is also a different situation. In these three situations, one is technically breaking the law but not really hurting anything, one is very much a danger that needs to be dealt with, and one is operating under extraordinary circumstances.

TheD0k_2many toys 2little time > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/19/2018 at 04:10

1

gettingoldercarguy > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/19/2018 at 10:50

0

A better article, the national review article has serious deficiencies in it.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/whats-really-happening-asylum-seeking-families-separated/

gettingoldercarguy > nermal 06/19/2018 at 11:06

0

“And they say, “You won’t be seeing your child again.” Sometimes mothers—I was talking to one mother, and she said, “Don’t take my child away,” and the child started screaming and vomiting and crying hysterically, and she asked the officers, “Can I at least have five minutes to console her?” They said no. In another case, the father said, “Can I comfort my child? Can I hold him for a few minutes?” The officer said, “You must let them go, and if you don’t let them go, I will write you up for an altercation, which will mean that you are the one that had the additional charges charged against you.” So, threats. So the father just let the child go.”

Autophile412 - what's the world got in store? > mkbruin, Atlas VP 06/20/2018 at 09:24

1

It is so nice to see a well written unbiased report on this. I am so tired of the Right and the Left screaming at each other using “facts” that they glean from their preferred news source.