8 ms·

I think you're getting it very wrong; this isn't about people saying "let's just allow illegal immigrants the full rights of legal immigrants". There are some p

I think you're getting it very wrong; this isn't about people saying "let's just allow illegal immigrants the full rights of legal immigrants". There are some people saying that, but they're a small minority. This is about saying "some people have come here illegally. let's not psychologically torture their children for it" You can be for legal migration and the humane treatment of people at the same time.

marcoperaza 8y ago
This is such a distortion of what’s happening. Crossing into the US illegally is a crime. We are now arresting and charging people who commit it. We do not send innocent children to prison, so the only option is separation. If you commit any other crime and are arrested, you will be “separated” from your child, because your child does not belong in prison. Why do you expect this to be any different?
- cycrutchfield 8y ago
  Applying for asylum is a crime?
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. But crossing into the country illegally is a crime, even if you subsequently request asylum. Edit: Someone1234, I would reply directly but I’m rate limited. The incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than that. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice. Edit: A further reply to Someone1234: you are citing these accounts by advocates on one side of the issue as truth. The official government statements are very clear on the situations in which children will be separated from the adults they are traveling with when claiming asylum at a port of entry. All of them concern either fears of human trafficking or other concern that child is not safe with the adult. Do government employees lie? Yes. But a systematic lie like that, involving the repeated illegal detention of children, would not last very long. If there’s one thing federal judges don’t tolerate, it’s being lied to.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      That's inaccurate. This person applied for asylum at a port of entry and was immediately separated from his child: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum-says-his-toddler-was-taken-away-at-the-u-s-border https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum... This article goes into detail about several other cases. Quote: > But there is evidence that even families who seek asylum at ports of entry are being separated. One high-profile case involves a Congolese woman who sought asylum and still was separated from her 7-year-old daughter. In February, NPR's Burnett reported on the legal battle of Ms. L v. ICE. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family...
      - mmirate 8y ago
        Since the grandparent is rate-limited, I'll point out for them that the incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than you seem to think. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice.
        Someone1234 8y ago
        Per my second link, the separation was indefinite while the asylum claim was evaluated, and asylum eligibility appears to be the main criteria rather than establishing parental relationship (which could take as long as DNA tests to come back). Plus this claim: > Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. Was wrong no matter how it is justified.
    - cycrutchfield 8y ago
      Are asylum seekers necessarily aware of that distinction?
      - 8y ago
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    Not trying to get into a political flame fest here, but honest question: Is asylum seekers the new term for illegal immigrants? Before it was undocumented immigrants. I'll admit it seems like it may be a more effective terminology for garnering sympathy, but it also carries more expectations, some legal. According to USCIS "asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion". The "fear" part is tricky of course but it cannot be denied that many of these people are crossing the border for economic reasons.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      "Asylum seekers" is the term for people who show up at a port of entry and ask for asylum. We don't have to admit all of them to the country, but are obligated by treaty to give their applications for asylum due consideration. It is also not reasonable to forcibly separate them from their families when their only crime is to ask to be allowed into the country.
      - furgooswft13 8y ago
        To my understanding, the people who actually showed up at an official port of entry are not the ones facing criminal prosecution and family separation. In fact, most of them are simply turned away or told "we're full for the day" or some such. Of course this often prompts them to just attempt crossing in an illegal way. Regardless, at that point it's no longer a matter of "asking to be allowed into the country". Point is I've seen the term "asylum seeker" a lot recently in reference to the current immigration crisis and the issue of families being separated. Certainly some of the families who crossed illegally are seeking asylum, but I suspect most are, just as always, people looking to immigrate because of the economic advantages of living and working in the US. Whatever you think of that, asylum it does not make. Edit: I have read of a few cases where apparently families that showed up at an official port of entry were detained and separated. If this is done without serious reason to believe the children are not actually related to the parents, or are otherwise in danger, of course it is wrong. Still most of the cases of family separation people are complaining about are from illegal crossings. Whether you believe that is right or wrong is another issue.
  - fareesh 8y ago
    It's a bit more nuanced. There are massive loopholes in the current asylum process that create a favorable outcome from anyone who tries. The current backlog is 600,000 cases. You have to wait until your case is heard to determine credible threat to life or whatever your claim is. Till then many disappear into society and are never seen again. Also 83% of kids didn't arrive at the border with their parents to begin with. They are accompanied by adults who are not their parents. The separation of kids from the adults during the waiting period for asylum affects 17% of kids who are actually with their parents when crossing over. Between october 2017 to now there has been a 315% increase of people pretending to be families in order to game the system, essentially using kids as a means of getting more humane treatment. The current outcry is a politically motivated PR campaign against the administration, who is faced with the extremely difficult task of dealing with criminals who are using children to shield themselves from strict consequences, and it seems to be working, thanks to the President's political opponents, who have knowingly taken the bait. If you wanted to "hack" your way into the USA the steps used to be 1) Sneak across border 2) If not caught, congrats 3) If caught, surrender and claim asylum 4) While waiting for your hearing, disappear 5) Bring kids along to maximize the chance of actually getting asylum, or getting more lenient treatment while being processed or waiting for your trial
    - noobermin 8y ago
      Here[0]. Prior to FY 2017, there were 46 cases. Since then, there have been...191 cases. This is out of 31K or so. The 3x of fraudulent cases increase sounds like a rounding error to me and is probably not indicative of a trend. Instead, the admin highlighting it is playing with statistics. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/zero-tolerance-why-trump-separating-families-at-border-2018-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/zero-tolerance-why-trump-sepa...
      - fareesh 8y ago
        There is still the fact that 83% (10000 out of 12000) of kids are not with their parents to begin with. The remaining 2000 are held for at most 20 days during which time an arrangement is made to have them stay with a family member or other caregiver.
  - leftistcensor03 8y ago
    you apply for asylum legally at a port of entry, like every one else. hopping the border and evading customs is illegal, and bringing your kids with you is not a get out of jail free card. it's really that simple. how do you not see this as an untenable immigration policy and disrespectful to people immigrating here legally?
- elicash 8y ago
  We're mostly talking about misdemeanors here. No, in most cases of misdemeanors we don't throw children in cages and take them away from their moms and dads.
  - ihsw2 8y ago
    We do now. Separating children from the adults they are accompanied by is a long-standing practice to prevent human trafficking and there are valid reasons for it that both sides of the aisle support, the difference is that ICE is now treating it as a criminal act requiring the aforementioned remanding into state custody while the details are sorted out. If there is an increase of "asylum seekers" then the time to process them will similarly increase, and as such children with their "families" are in state custody for a similarly increased amount of time.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - noobermin 8y ago
      There is actually no real evidence about this child trafficking idea. As far as I can tell, it's been merely floated by the right wing as a possibility.
      - ihsw2 8y ago
        That's an interesting statement considering the rules in place had full bipartisan support when they were enacted, I don't buy that it is exclusive to 'the right wing.'
  - refurb 8y ago
    No we’re not. They are being charged with a felony in this case.
    - noobermin 8y ago
      But that's actually not true...it isn't a felony to illegally enter the country the first time. It is a misdemeanor.
koolba 8y ago
What’s the alternative? Anyone else that commits a crime and is imprisoned is separated from their family and children. Why should illegal immigrants get a pass?
- dashundchen 8y ago
  There are asylum seekers, including those applying at ports of entry, being separated from their children. These children are being ripped from their parents and kept in literal cages in warehouses. https://twitter.com/DemWrite/status/1008939085384126464 https://twitter.com/DemWrite/status/1008939085384126464 I don't think that is happening in your scenario.
  - fareesh 8y ago
    The asylum backlog is 600,000 cases. They are not aslyum seekers, they are trying to take advantage of the backlog since under the earlier process they could just wait for their court date and disappear into the country before that. Asylum requests have gone up over 1000% because this exploit has been figured out and it is now the default method of gaining entry. 83% of the kids aren't even with their parents, they are posing as families. Only 2000 kids out of 12000 are actually with their parents. Kids can be held for upto 20 days maximum during which time they arrange for someone for them to stay with - mostly a family member. The Mexico visa is a lot cheaper than the whole process to get a US green card. I would not be surprised if this becomes the preferred method for many seeking a life there.
    - drb91 8y ago
      What’s the worst that can happen if we let them in? Our economy improves and our crime rate drops?
      - factsaresacred 8y ago
        1. There's another billion waiting to enter. 2. There is legal process of entry, they should follow it. 3. Illegal immigration drives down wages, crowding out the most vulnerable citizens of the US. 4. A country decides how and when people are allowed in. There are numerous downsides to mass immigration including stress on services like health, social services and accommodation. Again, to the detriment of citizens.
ihsw2 8y ago
Psychologically torture? Once their asylum claim has been processed, they are reunited with their parents. Either it is declined and they are deported with their parents, or they are accepted and provided temporary asylum with their parents. The asylum process takes a lengthy indeterminate period of time and their parents choose to apply for asylum -- repeat: their parents are informed of this and they make an informed choice to be placed into custody while this process occurs. They always have the choice to voluntarily be deported with their children back to their country of origin. Attempting to illegally enter the US is a crime, if that wasn't self-evident enough. Criminals are placed into custody and children are not allowed to be placed into custody with the adults they arrived with.
75dvtwin 8y ago
@i_dont_know, I think you are getting it very wrong. A humane thing to do, is for the parents that are committing the crime of illegal entry, and being deported -- to take their children with them. But instead, they are dropping their kids off here, knowing that US cannot deport them, together with their parents. And then they are crying-wolf, together with a few intellectually-dishonest politicians, that US immigration law, when enforced, is not humane. An inhumane thing to do, is to you use your own children as a shield, to avoid being punished for the crimes you are committing.
- 75dvtwin 8y ago
  It seems that US admin, at least temporarily resolved this. children will stay together with parents. Trying to put myself into shoes of those parents or children , the feeling must be horrifying. I guess the horribleness of the situation, is the same regardless of the nature of the crime. I wonder if criminal offenders will demand similar treatment, and argue in court, that their offense justifies similar treatment. Is there a country/policy that allows children and parents to stay together in temporary incarceration or detention? This is one of those things, I hope none of us would have to experience. Also, as I am reading more: it seems that there are 2 separate initial positions: A) one that every illegal immigrant must be treated as asylum seeker, unless proven otherwise. B) An illegal immigrant committed a crime, and is not an asylum seeker. That is: asylum seeker must report him/herself as such, at the legal border entry -- and let the border agent determine next steps.

marcoperaza 8y ago

This is such a distortion of what’s happening. Crossing into the US illegally is a crime. We are now arresting and charging people who commit it. We do not send innocent children to prison, so the only option is separation. If you commit any other crime and are arrested, you will be “separated” from your child, because your child does not belong in prison. Why do you expect this to be any different?

cycrutchfield 8y ago
Applying for asylum is a crime?
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. But crossing into the country illegally is a crime, even if you subsequently request asylum. Edit: Someone1234, I would reply directly but I’m rate limited. The incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than that. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice. Edit: A further reply to Someone1234: you are citing these accounts by advocates on one side of the issue as truth. The official government statements are very clear on the situations in which children will be separated from the adults they are traveling with when claiming asylum at a port of entry. All of them concern either fears of human trafficking or other concern that child is not safe with the adult. Do government employees lie? Yes. But a systematic lie like that, involving the repeated illegal detention of children, would not last very long. If there’s one thing federal judges don’t tolerate, it’s being lied to.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    That's inaccurate. This person applied for asylum at a port of entry and was immediately separated from his child: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum-says-his-toddler-was-taken-away-at-the-u-s-border https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum... This article goes into detail about several other cases. Quote: > But there is evidence that even families who seek asylum at ports of entry are being separated. One high-profile case involves a Congolese woman who sought asylum and still was separated from her 7-year-old daughter. In February, NPR's Burnett reported on the legal battle of Ms. L v. ICE. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family...
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Since the grandparent is rate-limited, I'll point out for them that the incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than you seem to think. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice.
      - Someone1234 8y ago
        Per my second link, the separation was indefinite while the asylum claim was evaluated, and asylum eligibility appears to be the main criteria rather than establishing parental relationship (which could take as long as DNA tests to come back). Plus this claim: > Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. Was wrong no matter how it is justified.
  - cycrutchfield 8y ago
    Are asylum seekers necessarily aware of that distinction?
    - 8y ago
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  Not trying to get into a political flame fest here, but honest question: Is asylum seekers the new term for illegal immigrants? Before it was undocumented immigrants. I'll admit it seems like it may be a more effective terminology for garnering sympathy, but it also carries more expectations, some legal. According to USCIS "asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion". The "fear" part is tricky of course but it cannot be denied that many of these people are crossing the border for economic reasons.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    "Asylum seekers" is the term for people who show up at a port of entry and ask for asylum. We don't have to admit all of them to the country, but are obligated by treaty to give their applications for asylum due consideration. It is also not reasonable to forcibly separate them from their families when their only crime is to ask to be allowed into the country.
    - furgooswft13 8y ago
      To my understanding, the people who actually showed up at an official port of entry are not the ones facing criminal prosecution and family separation. In fact, most of them are simply turned away or told "we're full for the day" or some such. Of course this often prompts them to just attempt crossing in an illegal way. Regardless, at that point it's no longer a matter of "asking to be allowed into the country". Point is I've seen the term "asylum seeker" a lot recently in reference to the current immigration crisis and the issue of families being separated. Certainly some of the families who crossed illegally are seeking asylum, but I suspect most are, just as always, people looking to immigrate because of the economic advantages of living and working in the US. Whatever you think of that, asylum it does not make. Edit: I have read of a few cases where apparently families that showed up at an official port of entry were detained and separated. If this is done without serious reason to believe the children are not actually related to the parents, or are otherwise in danger, of course it is wrong. Still most of the cases of family separation people are complaining about are from illegal crossings. Whether you believe that is right or wrong is another issue.
- fareesh 8y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced. There are massive loopholes in the current asylum process that create a favorable outcome from anyone who tries. The current backlog is 600,000 cases. You have to wait until your case is heard to determine credible threat to life or whatever your claim is. Till then many disappear into society and are never seen again. Also 83% of kids didn't arrive at the border with their parents to begin with. They are accompanied by adults who are not their parents. The separation of kids from the adults during the waiting period for asylum affects 17% of kids who are actually with their parents when crossing over. Between october 2017 to now there has been a 315% increase of people pretending to be families in order to game the system, essentially using kids as a means of getting more humane treatment. The current outcry is a politically motivated PR campaign against the administration, who is faced with the extremely difficult task of dealing with criminals who are using children to shield themselves from strict consequences, and it seems to be working, thanks to the President's political opponents, who have knowingly taken the bait. If you wanted to "hack" your way into the USA the steps used to be 1) Sneak across border 2) If not caught, congrats 3) If caught, surrender and claim asylum 4) While waiting for your hearing, disappear 5) Bring kids along to maximize the chance of actually getting asylum, or getting more lenient treatment while being processed or waiting for your trial
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Here[0]. Prior to FY 2017, there were 46 cases. Since then, there have been...191 cases. This is out of 31K or so. The 3x of fraudulent cases increase sounds like a rounding error to me and is probably not indicative of a trend. Instead, the admin highlighting it is playing with statistics. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/zero-tolerance-why-trump-separating-families-at-border-2018-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/zero-tolerance-why-trump-sepa...
    - fareesh 8y ago
      There is still the fact that 83% (10000 out of 12000) of kids are not with their parents to begin with. The remaining 2000 are held for at most 20 days during which time an arrangement is made to have them stay with a family member or other caregiver.
- leftistcensor03 8y ago
  you apply for asylum legally at a port of entry, like every one else. hopping the border and evading customs is illegal, and bringing your kids with you is not a get out of jail free card. it's really that simple. how do you not see this as an untenable immigration policy and disrespectful to people immigrating here legally?
elicash 8y ago
We're mostly talking about misdemeanors here. No, in most cases of misdemeanors we don't throw children in cages and take them away from their moms and dads.
- ihsw2 8y ago
  We do now. Separating children from the adults they are accompanied by is a long-standing practice to prevent human trafficking and there are valid reasons for it that both sides of the aisle support, the difference is that ICE is now treating it as a criminal act requiring the aforementioned remanding into state custody while the details are sorted out. If there is an increase of "asylum seekers" then the time to process them will similarly increase, and as such children with their "families" are in state custody for a similarly increased amount of time.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - noobermin 8y ago
    There is actually no real evidence about this child trafficking idea. As far as I can tell, it's been merely floated by the right wing as a possibility.
    - ihsw2 8y ago
      That's an interesting statement considering the rules in place had full bipartisan support when they were enacted, I don't buy that it is exclusive to 'the right wing.'
- refurb 8y ago
  No we’re not. They are being charged with a felony in this case.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    But that's actually not true...it isn't a felony to illegally enter the country the first time. It is a misdemeanor.

koolba 8y ago

What’s the alternative? Anyone else that commits a crime and is imprisoned is separated from their family and children. Why should illegal immigrants get a pass?

dashundchen 8y ago
There are asylum seekers, including those applying at ports of entry, being separated from their children. These children are being ripped from their parents and kept in literal cages in warehouses. https://twitter.com/DemWrite/status/1008939085384126464 https://twitter.com/DemWrite/status/1008939085384126464 I don't think that is happening in your scenario.
- fareesh 8y ago
  The asylum backlog is 600,000 cases. They are not aslyum seekers, they are trying to take advantage of the backlog since under the earlier process they could just wait for their court date and disappear into the country before that. Asylum requests have gone up over 1000% because this exploit has been figured out and it is now the default method of gaining entry. 83% of the kids aren't even with their parents, they are posing as families. Only 2000 kids out of 12000 are actually with their parents. Kids can be held for upto 20 days maximum during which time they arrange for someone for them to stay with - mostly a family member. The Mexico visa is a lot cheaper than the whole process to get a US green card. I would not be surprised if this becomes the preferred method for many seeking a life there.
  - drb91 8y ago
    What’s the worst that can happen if we let them in? Our economy improves and our crime rate drops?
    - factsaresacred 8y ago
      1. There's another billion waiting to enter. 2. There is legal process of entry, they should follow it. 3. Illegal immigration drives down wages, crowding out the most vulnerable citizens of the US. 4. A country decides how and when people are allowed in. There are numerous downsides to mass immigration including stress on services like health, social services and accommodation. Again, to the detriment of citizens.

ihsw2 8y ago

Psychologically torture? Once their asylum claim has been processed, they are reunited with their parents. Either it is declined and they are deported with their parents, or they are accepted and provided temporary asylum with their parents. The asylum process takes a lengthy indeterminate period of time and their parents choose to apply for asylum -- repeat: their parents are informed of this and they make an informed choice to be placed into custody while this process occurs. They always have the choice to voluntarily be deported with their children back to their country of origin. Attempting to illegally enter the US is a crime, if that wasn't self-evident enough. Criminals are placed into custody and children are not allowed to be placed into custody with the adults they arrived with.

75dvtwin 8y ago

@i_dont_know, I think you are getting it very wrong. A humane thing to do, is for the parents that are committing the crime of illegal entry, and being deported -- to take their children with them. But instead, they are dropping their kids off here, knowing that US cannot deport them, together with their parents. And then they are crying-wolf, together with a few intellectually-dishonest politicians, that US immigration law, when enforced, is not humane. An inhumane thing to do, is to you use your own children as a shield, to avoid being punished for the crimes you are committing.

75dvtwin 8y ago
It seems that US admin, at least temporarily resolved this. children will stay together with parents. Trying to put myself into shoes of those parents or children , the feeling must be horrifying. I guess the horribleness of the situation, is the same regardless of the nature of the crime. I wonder if criminal offenders will demand similar treatment, and argue in court, that their offense justifies similar treatment. Is there a country/policy that allows children and parents to stay together in temporary incarceration or detention? This is one of those things, I hope none of us would have to experience. Also, as I am reading more: it seems that there are 2 separate initial positions: A) one that every illegal immigrant must be treated as asylum seeker, unless proven otherwise. B) An illegal immigrant committed a crime, and is not an asylum seeker. That is: asylum seeker must report him/herself as such, at the legal border entry -- and let the border agent determine next steps.