How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?

[Winstonm]

Coming from a country that used to be eligible for political asylum, I'm shocked at the discussions. People who come knock at the door asking to be let in, do so because living in their own country is too dangerous and they fear for their life and for the life of their loved ones, not because they like to take a hike with their small kids over mountains and seas.

 

As long as the United States is being led by a demagogue, preaching a message of isolationism, fear, nationalism, and white privilege, and as long as the United States has a governing body who is in allegiance with that demagogue, there can be no solution, either nationally or internationally.

 

Build the wall is not a policy - it is a slogan. Lock her up is not a policy - it is sloganeering. That brown-skinned people from Latin countries will "infest" the United States unless criminalized and deported is not a policy - it is propaganda.

 

That we, as a country, continue to fall for this demagoguery is a stain on ourselves and our history that can never be removed.

[barmar]

Assuming that most people reject both the idea of completely open borders and the idea of completely closed borders, how do we decide what we actually should do?

You consider each case on its merits. It's hard work, but trying to set a blanket policy is unreasonable.

[barmar]

So back to the original topic here. It seems to me that there are only 3 choices:

• Arrest the illegal immigrants and separate them from the children
  
• Arrest the illegal immigrants and put the children in jail with the parents
  
• Arrest the illegal immigrants but if they have children release them and hope they show up at court
  

 

You do realize that illegal entry is just a misdemeanor, not a felony, don't you? We don't arrest people for most other misdemeanors, why do we have to take such a hard line on this one? They're not endangering anyone just by being here. We got by for years without this "zero tolerance" policy, and nothing has changed to make them more of a problem. The only thing that's changed is that POTUS is a racist.

[Winstonm]

But to cut to the chase, do you think that the answer to what should we do is obvious? An extreme possibility: If someone arrives at our border and says that they wish to enter and live here, should that be enough? Or, even more extreme, if someone in Honduras says they would like to come to the US but they lack the means to get here, should we provide transportation? I am not trying to put words in your mouth or anything like that. I am trying to address the following: Assuming that most people reject both the idea of completely open borders and the idea of completely closed borders, how do we decide what we actually should do?

 

If you think that borders should be completely open then that is one answer. If you put this idea to a vote it will not be only the people in flyover country (I grew up in flyover country but never mind) who will reject it. There is no chance that this view will become the majority view. A person can of course still hold that view but it will never become policy. Call us names if you like, that's what passes for argument these days, but it will never become policy.

 

Actually, I think I do have an answer.

 

One of the complaints from the Dennison camp is that the influx of asylum seekers and immigrants is too poorly skilled to be of benefit to the U.S. At the same time, one has to wonder why the simple fact of geographic location of birth determines so much national favor or disapproval, regardless of education, skills, or intelligence - or as Richard so succinctly put it - why we should give a "shi*" about what some Americans think compared to non-Americans.

 

Here is what I propose: The U.S. establishes a baseline model of acceptable intelligence quotient and skill set - and we test everyone of working age and younger in the U.S., building up a swap list from those who fail to surpass that baseline, regardless of whether or not it breaks up families or marriages or nationalities or races.

 

In honor of Corey Lewandowski, we would name this the "Womp, Womp Wish List".

 

Then, for every immigrant or asylum seeker who surpasses the base model we let in, we deport a stupid, lazy, uneducated, poor, unskilled, worthless American, regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation who is not smart enough or productive enough or wealthy enough to use up valuable space in the "Motherland".

 

Then, of course, we register all the new "Americans" as Democrats..... which, by my calculations, would make the U.S. voting population 67% Democrat by 2020.

[kenberg]

You consider each case on its merits. It's hard work, but trying to set a blanket policy is unreasonable.

 

Agreed, but still there is a problem. My guess is that most all of the 70 or so million refugees have compelling reasons for being refugees, and I would further guess that a large number of people who are not officially classified as refugees simply have no way of leaving getting away from their awful circumstances. They do not even have the opportunity to become refugees.

 

Do we not have to have a discussion of just what it means to "consider each case on its merits"? Quoting form the (pro-refugee) source I mentioned: "More people have been forced to flee their homes by conflict and crisis than at any time since World War II.".

 

So we have a problem. I think the stuff with the families diverted attention from this more difficult problem, just about everyone agreed that had to stop. To get back to the PBS story about the grandmother, I fully accept that she has serious reason to flee. Family members have been killed, as i understood it. There was no doubt a reason it was just her and the granddaughter. Others who might have come with her are buried. So, speaking of her individually, we could pay her way from her country of origin, skip the tough trip. Fine by me. Except there are some 70 million of her.

 

Not an easy problem. Right. But we do what?

It would be nice if the world stopped acting as it is acting. But no sign of that. So refugees are coming.

[Winstonm]

The irony is almost unimaginable.

[Winstonm]

Agreed, but still there is a problem. My guess is that most all of the 70 or so million refugees have compelling reasons for being refugees, and I would further guess that a large number of people who are not officially classified as refugees simply have no way of leaving getting away from their awful circumstances. They do not even have the opportunity to become refugees.

 

Do we not have to have a discussion of just what it means to "consider each case on its merits"? Quoting form the (pro-refugee) source I mentioned: "More people have been forced to flee their homes by conflict and crisis than at any time since World War II.".

 

So we have a problem. I think the stuff with the families diverted attention from this more difficult problem, just about everyone agreed that had to stop. To get back to the PBS story about the grandmother, I fully accept that she has serious reason to flee. Family members have been killed, as i understood it. There was no doubt a reason it was just her and the granddaughter. Others who might have come with her are buried. So, speaking of her individually, we could pay her way from her country of origin, skip the tough trip. Fine by me. Except there are some 70 million of her.

 

Not an easy problem. Right. But we do what?

It would be nice if the world stopped acting as it is acting. But no sign of that. So refugees are coming.

 

Well, it seems to me that a reasonable start would be with our allies, discussing the problems and coming to some kind of group plan to assist asylum seekers worldwide, with each country taking in some number of refugees and responsible for transporting families among countries.

 

Of course, these are no longer "reasonable" times. When you no longer share the same values as your allies, when humans beings fighting for their lives are considered sub-human "infestations", what you have left are some previous non-allies and newbie strongmen in previous allied countries, and the prospects of getting China, Poland, Russia, North Korea, Turkey, the Philippines, and now Italy to take in these refugees to either start or help bolster a national enslaved workforce - or perhaps as target practice.

 

Seems a straight 50/50 decision to me, help fellow humans/ enslaved workforce. Perhaps we should look to the Bible for guidance, or simply give it over into God's hands - after all, isn't he culpable, didn't he ultimately create the problem?

 

Let's see....Genesis....Leviticus....here it is...Exodus....Asylum seekers....I've got some bad news for you...

[StevenG]

Well, it seems to me that a reasonable start would be with our allies, discussing the problems and coming to some kind of group plan to assist asylum seekers worldwide, with each country taking in some number of refugees and responsible for transporting families among countries.

This is working wonderfully well within the EU.

[hrothgar]

Apparently hrothgar heard of studies saying that 90% goes to court.

 

The linked linked states the most recent estimate is that 46% skip court.

 

So I was asking if hrothgar was making up his "90% goes to court" number.

 

If *****-for-brains has actually bother to read my post, he would have seen that I cited two different links

 

The first was the link that Larry originally provide and misrepresented.

(This is te one where you state that the point current point estimate for the number of asylum seeker that don't show up is 46%, however, the long term average tends to fluctuate between 20 and 40%

 

I also provided the following link

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/myth-vs-fact-immigrant-families-appearance-rates-immigration-court which states

 

The majority of immigrant families—at least 60 percent or higher—appear for their immigration court hearings. For immigrant families who have legal counsel, 98 percent are in compliance with their obligations to appear for court hearings.

 

The 90% number was a figure that I had heard on NPR earlier in the week.

I will try to run it down

[ldrews]

First and foremost, I reject your framing...

 

The Trump wasn't using these tactics against illegal immigrants. The overwhelming majority of the cases involved asylum seekers.

And, asylum seekers are, by definition, not illegal immigrants.

 

Second, for years, the Obama administration and the Bush administration followed policies in which you

 

1. Provide the asylum seekers with shelter

2. Conduct preliminary interviews

3. Release them into the US until their application can be reviewed

 

And, guess what... The asylum seekers came back for their hearings.

 

There's no reason why this policy had to be changed in such a horrific manner.

 

As to your argument about long term increases in the number of asylum seekers who bring children.

I suspect that your evidence is as dubious as ever, and even if this is true I don't really care cause I don't consider this "child trafficking".

 

And, of course, people who favor torturing children don't get to use "Oh! But the poor children" as a line of argument

 

And I reject your framing of the illegal immigrants being asylum seekers. Legitimate asylum seekers present themselves at a port of entry and request asylum. Illegal immigrants, those crossing the border at other than ports of entry, and then claiming to be asylum seekers are simply using a subterfuge. Crossing the border at other than ports of entry is a crime in the US. Therefore those who do so are criminals.

[andrei]

I posted one with 85%. Round up, a$$hole

 

 

This one?

 

"

In recent months, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that adjudicates immigration removal cases, released data showing that the vast majority of families do in fact show up for court dates. This data, however, has been misconstrued—some have even claimed that 85 percent of mothers are not appearing for their hearings.

"

 

LOL

 

Try better ...

[andrei]

If *****-for-brains has actually bother to read my post, he would have seen that I cited two different links

 

The first was the link that Larry originally provide and misrepresented.

(This is te one where you state that the point current point estimate for the number of asylum seeker that don't show up is 46%, however, the long term average tends to fluctuate between 20 and 40%

 

I also provided the following link

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/myth-vs-fact-immigrant-families-appearance-rates-immigration-court which states

 

 

 

The 90% number was a figure that I had heard on NPR earlier in the week.

I will try to run it down

 

Larry's link says 54%.

Yours says 60%.

 

There is some work to do to get to 90%.

[Winstonm]

Let me help as I know some posters' search engines will only take them to Breitbart and Alex Jones websites:

 

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/Immigration_Court_Appearances_Feb_2018.pdf

 

According to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), as of December 2017, 97 percent of represented mothers whose cases initiated in fiscal year (FY) 2014 were in compliance with their immigration court hearing obligations three years later. Similarly, 98 percent of children in immigration proceedings whose cases initiated in 2014 and who had obtained counsel were in full compliance with their court appearance obligations as of December 2017.1

 

So it seems the issue is whether or not these people are represented by attorneys, which, surprise, the Dennison Gang capitalized on by defunding the program to provide legal defense, thus creating skewed statistics which, whether purposeful or not, made their position look more "reasonable".

[hrothgar]

And I reject your framing of the illegal immigrants being asylum seekers. Legitimate asylum seekers present themselves at a port of entry and request asylum. Illegal immigrants, those crossing the border at other than ports of entry, and then claiming to be asylum seekers are simply using a subterfuge. Crossing the border at other than ports of entry is a crime in the US. Therefore those who do so are criminals.

 

Nice try, *****head.

 

Regretfully, the US government was applying the same child separation policy both against asylum seekers and non asylum seekers

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/fact-check-trump-child-separation.html

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Congolese woman who says her daughter was taken from her when she applied for asylum at a port of entry.

 

As The Times and others have reported, asylum seekers are also being turned away when they do present themselves at ports of entry. Even when immigrants improperly cross the border, they can still legally seek asylum.

 

But the administration’s zero-tolerance policy subjects all who cross the border illegally, including asylum seekers, to prosecution.

[Winstonm]

Facts are such a nuisance!

[hrothgar]

Larry's link says 54%.

Yours says 60%.

 

There is some work to do to get to 90%.

 

Lets try this again...

 

Drews claims that his link showed that 90% DON'T show up when in fact it claims that the over a long period of measurement the percentage that show up moves between 70% and 80%.

They also state that the most recent point measurement had dropped to 54%. While this is certainly a drift from the long term average, it is also still a point measurement.

 

As WInston noted, I also provided a second link showing numbers well above 90% (admittedly for migrants who were able to get proper legal representation)

[johnu]

Nice try, *****head.

 

Regretfully, the US government was applying the same child separation policy both against asylum seekers and non asylum seekers

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/fact-check-trump-child-separation.html

 

And the US border guards have essentially closed the border to potential asylum seekers by preventing them from stepping on US soil so that they can claim asylum. So even if they had legitimate claims for asylum, they have no way to make a claim for asylum.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/563084/us-border-asylum/

[Al_U_Card]

Do the court appearances referenced include all immigrants (legal, illegal and asylum-seekers) or do they differentiate?

[Winstonm]

I guess this must be more "fake news" as no one from the "party" would dare talk this way about "dear leader" Dennison:

 

Republican Rep. Mike Coffman, who faces a tough reelection this year in Colorado, on Thursday afternoon called on President Trump to fire senior policy adviser Stephen Miller.

 

“The President should put a General, a respected retired CEO or some other senior leadership figure on the job of making sure each and every child is returned to their parents,” Coffman tweeted. “And the President should fire Stephen Miller now. This is a human rights mess. It is on the President to clean it up and fire the people responsible for making it.”

 

Either that, or we've finally trapped a witch!

[hrothgar]

Do the court appearances referenced include all immigrants (legal, illegal and asylum-seekers) or do they differentiate?

 

Why do you care? Just make up whatever position you want.

Its what you usually do.

[ldrews]

Lets try this again...

 

Drews claims that his link showed that 90% DON'T show up when in fact it claims that the over a long period of measurement the percentage that show up moves between 70% and 80%.

They also state that the most recent point measurement had dropped to 54%. While this is certainly a drift from the long term average, it is also still a point measurement.

 

As WInston noted, I also provided a second link showing numbers well above 90% (admittedly for migrants who were able to get proper legal representation)

 

Excuse me, I did not claim that 90% don't show up, I claimed that Senator Jeff Flake reported that 90% don't show up. It would help if you get your facts straight.

[ldrews]

And the US border guards have essentially closed the border to potential asylum seekers by preventing them from stepping on US soil so that they can claim asylum. So even if they had legitimate claims for asylum, they have no way to make a claim for asylum.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/563084/us-border-asylum/

 

They have no legitimate claims for asylum unless they present themselves to an official port of entry.

[hrothgar]

They have no legitimate claims for asylum unless they present themselves to an official port of entry.

 

Drews, you might believe that these individual have no legitimate claim to asylum, but they do have a legal claim.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/fact-check-trump-child-separation.html

 

Even when immigrants improperly cross the border, they can still legally seek asylum.

[hrothgar]

Excuse me, I did not claim that 90% don't show up, I claimed that Senator Jeff Flake reported that 90% don't show up. It would help if you get your facts straight.

 

So what was the point of posting incorrect information *****head?

[hrothgar]

First time illegal entry into the United States is a misdemeanor.

 

Lying on or omitting materially relevant information from your SF86 (as Jared Kushner did multiple times by his own admission) is a felony.

 

Guess which one's getting prosecuted?