Politics Thread

[xudash]

The better question is what kind of situations are they running from that makes the possibility of being separated from their children better than staying put. The risk of being separated is better than the risk of being dead.

In some situations they might very well be the most responsible, selfless parents you'd ever meet.

That is a very fair counter point.

At the risk of being too blunt for this message board, how could these parents possibly be deemed to be responsible for bringing life into such pathetic environments in the first place?

Otherwise, assuming they know this policy exists at the US border, and knowing that there are other Spanish-speaking nations that could serve as safe harbors for them, why not go to one of them?

Now please understand that I agree that it is absolutely terrible two separate families like this, but I am sick and tired of people flowing into this country illegally. They are coming in illegally!

[bjf123]

It’s not as black and white as everyone wants to make it. There are so many variables. Is the adult really the child’s parent or legal guardian? Apparently, that’s not always the case. Do you just open the borders and let anyone with a child in? If not, what do you do?

As for the moral outrage over this, and yes, it is very sad, it was apparently covered up when the Obama administration did the same thing. This is according to a Democrat from Texas who saw it happening.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/16/de...igrant-crisis/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boozehound]

That is a very fair counter point.

At the risk of being too blunt for this message board, how could these parents possibly be deemed to be responsible for bringing life into such pathetic environments in the first place?

Otherwise, assuming they know this policy exists at the US border, and knowing that there are other Spanish-speaking nations that could serve as safe harbors for them, why not go to one of them?

Now please understand that I agree that it is absolutely terrible two separate families like this, but I am sick and tired of people flowing into this country illegally. They are coming in illegally!

That's pretty blunt. I don't entirely disagree with the premise - for example my wife and I had a very hard time even having children largely because we waited until after I had completed my MBA and we were financially established to start trying. It does bear consideration that (1) reproduction is our most basic biological instinct and (2) many of these countries have deteriorated so the parents may not have knowingly been bringing children into the environment in which they currently find themselves. I also do have sympathy as a parent for people fleeing terrible situations like that with their children.

I will also say that I worked with a lot of illegal immigrants in college while working at a restaurant. Most of them were fleeing some pretty awful stuff, and most (not all) were good people. One died of a highly treatable form of Cancer because he was afraid to see a Doctor for fear of being deported.

It's also my understanding that most of these families are not necessarily 'here illegally' but are seeking asylum. The reason that they don't present themselves at the border asking for asylum is because they have a much better chance of being granted asylum if they are already on US soil. Technically they did cross illegally, but many as asylum seekers.

Having said that, we do need a process to vet these people to ensure that they are actually legitimately seeking asylum. I would advocate that we keep families together while awaiting the decision on whether or not to grant asylum. If we determine not to grant asylum, it would be humane to make arrangements with other countries to see if they would accept these refugees rather than returning them to their previous home countries if at all possible.

[X-man]

If you're getting into whether child-parent separation was worse under Trump than Obama then you're already missing the point. This isn't a policy that needs to end because it's worse than when it happened under the Obama administration. It's a policy that needs to end because it's messed up.

Did you read the article? In Obama's situation, according to the article, the kids were helping smuggle people across.....repeatedly. They were detained to discourage them (the kids) from continuing that practice. Can't you see a difference? And do you want to argue that kids who break the law shouldn't be punished? Apples and oranges.

[Caf]

Did you read the article? In Obama's situation, according to the article, the kids were helping smuggle people across.....repeatedly. They were detained to discourage them (the kids) from continuing that practice. Can't you see a difference? And do you want to argue that kids who break the law shouldn't be punished? Apples and oranges.

Yes I did - and no I don't really see the difference. This is the same justification Trump will be using. If people think children weren't taken from parents under Obama and it was only children engaged in smuggling they are kidding themselves.

Ultimately it comes down to what's the point of our entire immigration policy. If this country's goal is to prevent immigration from the southern border then it should do what it can to prevent it and deport those who come over. Detaining children, separating them from parents or just the adults they came with is fruitless and pointless. Really, detaining anyone who comes over is pointless if their only crime is coming here in the first place.

Also, I don't buy this as deterrent. They're fleeing much worse than an American prison. Even in the article they talk about how there was tourism and psychiatric support. That's 1000x better than what they're fleeing. This whole immigration reform wave is based on the lie that they're ruining the economy and taking taxpayer money. Why even spend money punishing them then? Take preventative measures and just deport.

[xudash]

That's pretty blunt. I don't entirely disagree with the premise - for example my wife and I had a very hard time even having children largely because we waited until after I had completed my MBA and we were financially established to start trying. It does bear consideration that (1) reproduction is our most basic biological instinct and (2) many of these countries have deteriorated so the parents may not have knowingly been bringing children into the environment in which they currently find themselves. I also do have sympathy as a parent for people fleeing terrible situations like that with their children.

I will also say that I worked with a lot of illegal immigrants in college while working at a restaurant. Most of them were fleeing some pretty awful stuff, and most (not all) were good people. One died of a highly treatable form of Cancer because he was afraid to see a Doctor for fear of being deported.

It's also my understanding that most of these families are not necessarily 'here illegally' but are seeking asylum. The reason that they don't present themselves at the border asking for asylum is because they have a much better chance of being granted asylum if they are already on US soil. Technically they did cross illegally, but many as asylum seekers.

Having said that, we do need a process to vet these people to ensure that they are actually legitimately seeking asylum. I would advocate that we keep families together while awaiting the decision on whether or not to grant asylum. If we determine not to grant asylum, it would be humane to make arrangements with other countries to see if they would accept these refugees rather than returning them to their previous home countries if at all possible.

My statement is absolutely blunt: too blunt for many, but blunt and reasonable for those who believe that RESPONSIBILITY BEGINS AT HOME. You were responsible. You and your wife made an informed decision to get financially established so that you could build a family on a strong foundation.

You also make a fair point about the possibility of things having been more normal "at home" at the time some of these people decided to have children, but, as a practical matter, virtually all the people who are making tracks our way are, in fact, making tracks: they don't have an S-Class that they're also trying to get across the border. I have to imagine that we're still dealing with a poverty-driven issue that has been exacerbated by repressive regime policies.

Some will argue that lessor developed nations can't break the cycle. Educational resources aren't sufficiently present to help guide youth in terms of making key early life decisions. Birth control probably is unaffordable, assuming it's available. Perhaps even the Catholic Church still steps in with strict doctrine and declares the use of contraceptives as a sinful practice in those poor Latin nations that always seem to have this chronic cycle of suffering and desperation.

BTW, this is absolutely not about taking away a human's most basic rights. What it should be about is committing resources into areas/regions/nations with structured-poverty to navigate children towards education and development so that they can grow up and have a legitimate shot at a reasonable quality of life. At the very least, a better shot than they have now, growing up in destitution and desperation. We - a very collective "we" - don't appear to value humanity enough to attack this problem at its source. And so we repeat this cycle with each new generation, temporarily relieved and pleased that we occasionally witness great humanitarian efforts in 20 minute segments on 60 Minutes or some other news outlet. It always seems like its a few inches forward and three steps back. Perhaps that's just me.

Perhaps my problem is that I make the mistake of watching local news during the evening on a lot of nights. The problem of not helping society get to a place where families can have a chance if they're otherwise formed is the same fundamental problem that exists in this nation in its poorest areas. Poverty and historically horrid immigration policy - fundamental lack of enforcement - have given us MS-13. U.S. poverty has given us violence in our largest cities on a grand scale.

On that note: gun control? When it comes to automatic and semi-automatic weapons, YES, absolutely. The founding fathers didn't have them, probably would have thought them wasteful and certainly could not foresee them. Gun control in general? Beyond stupid. Seriously, truly beyond stupid. Invest in a way that breaks the poverty cycle: stop having children until you're ready to have children, and then help responsible families have a chance once families are formed.

Will that take violence to ZERO? Of course not. But imagine how much better things would be if educational and support resources were made available and properly directed.

Back on topic: I agree with your idea for asylum: keep them together, process and determine their status for inclusion in American society, and arrange for an alternative address if need be, assuming the new host kicks in with some financial support for its soon-to-be new citizens to get them there.

The United States is long past being able to save the world: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[X-man]

Yes I did - and no I don't really see the difference. This is the same justification Trump will be using. If people think children weren't taken from parents under Obama and it was only children engaged in smuggling they are kidding themselves.

Ultimately it comes down to what's the point of our entire immigration policy. If this country's goal is to prevent immigration from the southern border then it should do what it can to prevent it and deport those who come over. Detaining children, separating them from parents or just the adults they came with is fruitless and pointless. Really, detaining anyone who comes over is pointless if their only crime is coming here in the first place.

Also, I don't buy this as deterrent. They're fleeing much worse than an American prison. Even in the article they talk about how there was tourism and psychiatric support. That's 1000x better than what they're fleeing. This whole immigration reform wave is based on the lie that they're ruining the economy and taking taxpayer money. Why even spend money punishing them then? Take preventative measures and just deport.

That's what the article says, so how do you know otherwise?

[Caf]

That's what the article says, so how do you know otherwise?

That's assuming the government was fully forthcoming on the details of the hundreds of juveniles referenced, the government made no mistakes or exceptions, that every single "guide" was in fact what they say and their parents were definitely not with them.

Not detaining minors without a charge is a pretty basic principle worth upholding.

[bobbiemcgee]

Not to worry, Fox News sez the kids are just at "summer camps".

[paulxu]

There's definitely something wrong with me.
When I look at a teenager, who is guiding immigrants across the border, and is detained to prevent more of that activity...and then look at a 2 year old in his mother's arms...I see two different situations.

Also, good luck with this program:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/polit...int/index.html