6 ms·

What’s the conversation? Separating kids from parents or deporting them with parents because we don’t want them to be separate? There is no question about break

What’s the conversation? Separating kids from parents or deporting them with parents because we don’t want them to be separate? There is no question about breaking the law by parents. Question is do you let children be with their mothers(who apparently asked to do so) or no. As someone who came legally to Canada and went through thorough screening of 4 years before coming I just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. “Think of the children” works when you are in a super white rich neighborhood, if you never lived in slums you won’t understand the abuse of the system by “think of the children”, you just don’t see it from the other side.

bodiekane 1y ago
> just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. This is a story about citizens being deported without due process, without access to lawyers, without access to healthcare. You don't have to be "ok with cheaters" to still want those people to have basic human rights and to see the system have legitimate judicial review. The punishment here is far worse than the crime, and it's directed at children who didn't commit the crime, and it was doled out in a horrifyingly abusive totalitarian police-state style. Maybe you're not seeing things from the right side?
- kcplate 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - LorenPechtel 1y ago
    Do you not recognize that that letter was most likely signed under duress? She was probably offered to permit her baby to be deported with or or the baby goes into the foster care system, not to the husband. The Felon has specifically used separation from families and destroyed records as a weapon before, why do you think he's not doing it now??
    - kcplate 1y ago
      Does it really matter? Of course it was stressful. Most parents would not opt to be separated from a child. Especially mother from a baby… If you make a decision that comes with a great deal of risk to you and by extension your family (like crossing a border without following a proper immigration procedure). If that gamble doesn’t go your way would you really opt to leave your child if you could? Perhaps you would. I wouldn’t. Apparently she didn’t want to do that either. I am not going to ascribe any alternative motive other than love between a parent and child. > She was probably… > The Felon yada yada yada… Do you any evidence at all that is what is being done here or are you just inventing a backstory and trying to pass it off as evidence?
  - thephyber 1y ago
    > this is a story that really attempts to justify the use of birthright citizenship to create chain immigration … *Which is the current law of the land.* The existing jurisprudence states that all people born on US land (with the exception of some foreign diplomat children) are US citizens. The ACLU is arguing to maintain the existing, settled law. Attempts to undo birthright citizenship need to argue how they think it should work and why they think it should be changed without a Constitutional amendment. Yes, obviously the ACLU will pick a case that has good optics for them. That is how EVERY special interest tries to bring their preferred case up the appeals chain towards SCOTUS. We aren’t ignorant of that. That’s pan outgrowth of the fact that the US court system is adversarial. Here’s a fun thought experiment: if birthright citizenship requires additional requirements (I think the Trump admin claims it should also require at least 1 parent be a US citizenship at the time of the birth in the USA), does the citizenship rollback apply retroactively? Does it retroactively apply to all generations going back to the founding of the country? Does it go back even further? Scarier thought experiment: Has any country ever tried to remove citizenship from tens or hundreds of millions of citizens? How do we “deport” people who have known no other country as home and have no paperwork in any other country?
    - kcplate 1y ago
      Birthright citizenship may be settled, but the citizen is not the one being deported, the mother is. If the mother has custody of the child and opts to bring the child with them…I doubt you can find any settled case law that establishes that a parent cannot be deported because of the citizenship status of the child….whether a child is minor or not a minor. Perhaps I need to read it again, but nowhere do I recall reading that the citizenship of the child is being revoked, so this isn’t really challenging birthright citizenship, it’s more about challenging the notion of an anchor baby passing legal residency status to a parent.
watwut 1y ago
A dad of a kid was literally fighting for the kid to stay. He is an American. I read about one case and that was the situation. Maybe stop making hypotheticals designed to excuse what happened and fake concerns. There was no attempt to keep family together oe do right by the kids.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > dad of a kid was literally fighting for the kid to stay. He is an American Are you saying he's figuratively American, or that the father is a U.S. citizen. Because VML's petition for writ of habeas [1] doesn't mention the latter. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-v-harper/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-v-harp...
  - watwut 1y ago
    In the case I have in mind, dad was an American, not to be deported anywhere cause he is an American and engaged in legal figt to keep the kid. The "kid cant be without a parent" excuse does not work there.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      Which case is this?
gopher_space 1y ago
> As someone who came legally to Canada and went through thorough screening of 4 years before coming I just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system We grew up with the idea that America was a beacon, not a whites-only gated community. There’s no reason for us to think less of someone just because they want to be here. Our ancestors did exactly the same thing. It sucks that you’re here complaining about the Statue of Liberty.
neither_color 1y ago
>I just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. I usually steer clear of talking about these issues but there's something in the framing of this issue that maga has intentionally made people misunderstand: People do not say "I'm going to risk my life crossing a desert, and then when i have kids I'll be untouchable!" The actual "cheaters" are the birth hotel operators, whose clients are wealthy international elites who fly in while pregnant, then immediately leave to raise their US citizen babies abroad: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-l-maternity-hotel-birth-tourists-n315996 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-l-maternity-h... These instances of people actually and deliberately cheating the system require a completely separate system of enforcement that does not need to target desperate people who happened to get pregnant over the course of living life and making ends meet and whose children for all intents and purposes will grow up as regular English-speaking Americans who will go to school, work and pay taxes just like everyone else. Immigrants on dual-intent visas(e.g forever h1b but not yet green card), asylum seekers, etc do not get pregnant to "cheat the system".
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  But the birth hotels are people with money. Think the reich wing cares? And life happens. The woman that became my wife was here on a temporary visa, life threw us together, our hearts had their own idea about the situation despite both of us mistakenly believing the other was not available. And, no, there's no way she engineered it--the choices that threw us together were all made by others.
thephyber 1y ago
Have you seriously not gone through the thought exercise of why some thoughtful + well-informed people would oppose your opinion on the subject? (1) in previous centuries, the US accepted as many immigrants as could arrive “on Ellis Island” and it only took a few weeks. All of the immigration barriers that you overcame were added by American legislators many centuries after my ancestors came to America. I don’t view “illegal immigrants” any different than I viewed my own ancestors who came to America in the 1500s. (2) US law affords legal pathways to residency/ citizenship for refugees and political asylum claimants. Just because you used one slow legal workflow doesn’t mean you should look down on people who used a faster legal workflow. They aren’t “gaming” the system — they are using the fast lane that was installed purposefully. If anything, we should use the legislature to revisit the fast lane (the refugee and political asylum claims) (3) an infant didn’t have any volition in this situation. Maybe they were born here as an “anchor baby” (which the Trump Admin is trying to redefine as not-a-citizen, breaking with all of the jurisprudence). If they were pushed over the border by their parents or someone else, we have a duty to make sure their life is handled with care, not malice. (4) there are political and media interests in making “legal immigrants” like you hate other immigrants. It makes native born Americans feel like they have cover for their hatred of immigrants. You should sit with the thought experiment of whether it’s actually relevant to the conversation that you “spent years getting here the hard way” or whether the conversation would be more productive without it. (5) the reason the “immigration system is broken” is because there are multiple factions in America who can’t agree on what kind of changes to make to it. Famously Obama tried to force Congress to deal with it around 2013, but the “Gang of Eight” couldn’t come up with even broad guidelines for changes that both parties would agree to. There are simply too many people who have strong opinions and yet believe untrue things about American immigration. Are you perhaps in this category?
- remarkEon 1y ago
  Re point (5), the "gang of eight" bill would've been the de facto process (illegally entering, having children or marrying, attempting to bring family over via chain migration) the de jure one via advertising to the rest of the word that violating US immigration law does not matter. We ended up running an experiment over the course of the last 4 years to see what that looks like and the results are grim. >There are simply too many people who have strong opinions and yet believe untrue things about American immigration. You appear to be operating from a different premise than people who are skeptical of past efforts to "reform" immigration law. "Permanent legal mass migration" is not the bargain the country wants to make, and thus far every attempt to "reform" immigration operates from that initial premise.
mariodiana 1y ago
Exactly. Children belong with their parents. And if their parents don't belong here, then Q.E.D.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
lazyeye 1y ago
[flagged]
belorn 1y ago
From the perspective from Sweden, the problem is not that complicated as long one agree to a few core concept. Children has rights that supersede that of their parents, and the parents are usually the best adults to take care of their children but not always. If deportation of the whole family is the best for the child, then you do that. If placing the child with relatives or foster care is the better choice, you do that. Children aged 2, 4, and 7 can't "game" the system, and so its the adults job to take responsibility and find a solution that address the rights of the child.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
You think that letter was not signed under duress?? And I don't see the system particularly being gamed. The reality is an awful lot of people are fleeing oppression. The gangs and the cartels etc make it so the people don't have an option but to turn to them. And despite what the reich wing says most of the immigrants are not a problem. And the reich wing specifically set out to ensure Biden couldn't accomplish anything. And now we see high profile and often wrong deportations, yet a lower total rate than under Biden.
gehwartzen 1y ago
I came to this country as an immigrant and gained my citizenship while going through the appropriate legal channels. I have zero fear of being rounded up in the current political climate. The reason? I’m a white guy from Germany. The entire process was easy for me. No one ever questions where I’m from because I’m white, have a white collar job, and speak fluent English. That seems enough to be enough for any fellow American to not consider me a “foreigner”. If everything else about me was the same except I had darker skin and an accent I would be extremely scared right now that I could get rounded up based on nothing more than someone’s vibes of me.
- cryptoegorophy 1y ago
  Why was that woman being deported? I don’t think it was because of the color of her skin but she broke certain laws from what I’ve read. Don’t break laws and you would be fine. Problem before was that breaking laws went unpunished.

bodiekane 1y ago

> just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. This is a story about citizens being deported without due process, without access to lawyers, without access to healthcare. You don't have to be "ok with cheaters" to still want those people to have basic human rights and to see the system have legitimate judicial review. The punishment here is far worse than the crime, and it's directed at children who didn't commit the crime, and it was doled out in a horrifyingly abusive totalitarian police-state style. Maybe you're not seeing things from the right side?

kcplate 1y ago
[flagged]
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  Do you not recognize that that letter was most likely signed under duress? She was probably offered to permit her baby to be deported with or or the baby goes into the foster care system, not to the husband. The Felon has specifically used separation from families and destroyed records as a weapon before, why do you think he's not doing it now??
  - kcplate 1y ago
    Does it really matter? Of course it was stressful. Most parents would not opt to be separated from a child. Especially mother from a baby… If you make a decision that comes with a great deal of risk to you and by extension your family (like crossing a border without following a proper immigration procedure). If that gamble doesn’t go your way would you really opt to leave your child if you could? Perhaps you would. I wouldn’t. Apparently she didn’t want to do that either. I am not going to ascribe any alternative motive other than love between a parent and child. > She was probably… > The Felon yada yada yada… Do you any evidence at all that is what is being done here or are you just inventing a backstory and trying to pass it off as evidence?
- thephyber 1y ago
  > this is a story that really attempts to justify the use of birthright citizenship to create chain immigration … *Which is the current law of the land.* The existing jurisprudence states that all people born on US land (with the exception of some foreign diplomat children) are US citizens. The ACLU is arguing to maintain the existing, settled law. Attempts to undo birthright citizenship need to argue how they think it should work and why they think it should be changed without a Constitutional amendment. Yes, obviously the ACLU will pick a case that has good optics for them. That is how EVERY special interest tries to bring their preferred case up the appeals chain towards SCOTUS. We aren’t ignorant of that. That’s pan outgrowth of the fact that the US court system is adversarial. Here’s a fun thought experiment: if birthright citizenship requires additional requirements (I think the Trump admin claims it should also require at least 1 parent be a US citizenship at the time of the birth in the USA), does the citizenship rollback apply retroactively? Does it retroactively apply to all generations going back to the founding of the country? Does it go back even further? Scarier thought experiment: Has any country ever tried to remove citizenship from tens or hundreds of millions of citizens? How do we “deport” people who have known no other country as home and have no paperwork in any other country?
  - kcplate 1y ago
    Birthright citizenship may be settled, but the citizen is not the one being deported, the mother is. If the mother has custody of the child and opts to bring the child with them…I doubt you can find any settled case law that establishes that a parent cannot be deported because of the citizenship status of the child….whether a child is minor or not a minor. Perhaps I need to read it again, but nowhere do I recall reading that the citizenship of the child is being revoked, so this isn’t really challenging birthright citizenship, it’s more about challenging the notion of an anchor baby passing legal residency status to a parent.

watwut 1y ago

A dad of a kid was literally fighting for the kid to stay. He is an American. I read about one case and that was the situation. Maybe stop making hypotheticals designed to excuse what happened and fake concerns. There was no attempt to keep family together oe do right by the kids.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> dad of a kid was literally fighting for the kid to stay. He is an American Are you saying he's figuratively American, or that the father is a U.S. citizen. Because VML's petition for writ of habeas [1] doesn't mention the latter. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-v-harper/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-v-harp...
- watwut 1y ago
  In the case I have in mind, dad was an American, not to be deported anywhere cause he is an American and engaged in legal figt to keep the kid. The "kid cant be without a parent" excuse does not work there.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Which case is this?

gopher_space 1y ago

> As someone who came legally to Canada and went through thorough screening of 4 years before coming I just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system We grew up with the idea that America was a beacon, not a whites-only gated community. There’s no reason for us to think less of someone just because they want to be here. Our ancestors did exactly the same thing. It sucks that you’re here complaining about the Statue of Liberty.

neither_color 1y ago

>I just don’t get how people are ok with “cheaters” gaming the system. I usually steer clear of talking about these issues but there's something in the framing of this issue that maga has intentionally made people misunderstand: People do not say "I'm going to risk my life crossing a desert, and then when i have kids I'll be untouchable!" The actual "cheaters" are the birth hotel operators, whose clients are wealthy international elites who fly in while pregnant, then immediately leave to raise their US citizen babies abroad: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-l-maternity-hotel-birth-tourists-n315996 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-l-maternity-h... These instances of people actually and deliberately cheating the system require a completely separate system of enforcement that does not need to target desperate people who happened to get pregnant over the course of living life and making ends meet and whose children for all intents and purposes will grow up as regular English-speaking Americans who will go to school, work and pay taxes just like everyone else. Immigrants on dual-intent visas(e.g forever h1b but not yet green card), asylum seekers, etc do not get pregnant to "cheat the system".

LorenPechtel 1y ago
But the birth hotels are people with money. Think the reich wing cares? And life happens. The woman that became my wife was here on a temporary visa, life threw us together, our hearts had their own idea about the situation despite both of us mistakenly believing the other was not available. And, no, there's no way she engineered it--the choices that threw us together were all made by others.

thephyber 1y ago

Have you seriously not gone through the thought exercise of why some thoughtful + well-informed people would oppose your opinion on the subject? (1) in previous centuries, the US accepted as many immigrants as could arrive “on Ellis Island” and it only took a few weeks. All of the immigration barriers that you overcame were added by American legislators many centuries after my ancestors came to America. I don’t view “illegal immigrants” any different than I viewed my own ancestors who came to America in the 1500s. (2) US law affords legal pathways to residency/ citizenship for refugees and political asylum claimants. Just because you used one slow legal workflow doesn’t mean you should look down on people who used a faster legal workflow. They aren’t “gaming” the system — they are using the fast lane that was installed purposefully. If anything, we should use the legislature to revisit the fast lane (the refugee and political asylum claims) (3) an infant didn’t have any volition in this situation. Maybe they were born here as an “anchor baby” (which the Trump Admin is trying to redefine as not-a-citizen, breaking with all of the jurisprudence). If they were pushed over the border by their parents or someone else, we have a duty to make sure their life is handled with care, not malice. (4) there are political and media interests in making “legal immigrants” like you hate other immigrants. It makes native born Americans feel like they have cover for their hatred of immigrants. You should sit with the thought experiment of whether it’s actually relevant to the conversation that you “spent years getting here the hard way” or whether the conversation would be more productive without it. (5) the reason the “immigration system is broken” is because there are multiple factions in America who can’t agree on what kind of changes to make to it. Famously Obama tried to force Congress to deal with it around 2013, but the “Gang of Eight” couldn’t come up with even broad guidelines for changes that both parties would agree to. There are simply too many people who have strong opinions and yet believe untrue things about American immigration. Are you perhaps in this category?

remarkEon 1y ago
Re point (5), the "gang of eight" bill would've been the de facto process (illegally entering, having children or marrying, attempting to bring family over via chain migration) the de jure one via advertising to the rest of the word that violating US immigration law does not matter. We ended up running an experiment over the course of the last 4 years to see what that looks like and the results are grim. >There are simply too many people who have strong opinions and yet believe untrue things about American immigration. You appear to be operating from a different premise than people who are skeptical of past efforts to "reform" immigration law. "Permanent legal mass migration" is not the bargain the country wants to make, and thus far every attempt to "reform" immigration operates from that initial premise.

mariodiana 1y ago

Exactly. Children belong with their parents. And if their parents don't belong here, then Q.E.D.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

lazyeye 1y ago

[flagged]

belorn 1y ago

From the perspective from Sweden, the problem is not that complicated as long one agree to a few core concept. Children has rights that supersede that of their parents, and the parents are usually the best adults to take care of their children but not always. If deportation of the whole family is the best for the child, then you do that. If placing the child with relatives or foster care is the better choice, you do that. Children aged 2, 4, and 7 can't "game" the system, and so its the adults job to take responsibility and find a solution that address the rights of the child.

LorenPechtel 1y ago

You think that letter was not signed under duress?? And I don't see the system particularly being gamed. The reality is an awful lot of people are fleeing oppression. The gangs and the cartels etc make it so the people don't have an option but to turn to them. And despite what the reich wing says most of the immigrants are not a problem. And the reich wing specifically set out to ensure Biden couldn't accomplish anything. And now we see high profile and often wrong deportations, yet a lower total rate than under Biden.

gehwartzen 1y ago

I came to this country as an immigrant and gained my citizenship while going through the appropriate legal channels. I have zero fear of being rounded up in the current political climate. The reason? I’m a white guy from Germany. The entire process was easy for me. No one ever questions where I’m from because I’m white, have a white collar job, and speak fluent English. That seems enough to be enough for any fellow American to not consider me a “foreigner”. If everything else about me was the same except I had darker skin and an accent I would be extremely scared right now that I could get rounded up based on nothing more than someone’s vibes of me.

cryptoegorophy 1y ago
Why was that woman being deported? I don’t think it was because of the color of her skin but she broke certain laws from what I’ve read. Don’t break laws and you would be fine. Problem before was that breaking laws went unpunished.