Solutions to the Immigration Detention Camps
Mike, (peoplepower73), is the impetus for this topic, but I hope all will participate.
Let me state what I think are some 'givens':
1) The number of unaccompanied minors and family units with minors crossing our borders is at crisis proportions.
2) The numbers of minors and family units with minors crossing our borders has overwhelmed our CBP facilities and manpower capabilities.
3) The current conditions of overwhelmed CBP officers and facilities is real and is at a crisis point.
4) The conditions at the detention camps* can be honestly described at substandard at best and deplorable at worst.
*I think there should be a distinction between CBP border station detention facilities and off-location detention facilities. A quick Google search will show you the reason I make that distinction.
5) Saving the most important for last, the incoming flow of immigrants is increasing.
So, with those givens, what solutions might be proposed to fix the deplorable overcrowded and understaffed conditions at the border detention camps? And, should money not be a consideration?
Back to my reference to Mike; he suggested we need to think "outside the box." My thoughts are that without first stopping the inflow, we have no choice except to spend whatever is need to build and properly staff new detention centers. I don't see an in-the-box or outside the box workable solution.
Can you think of a detention camp solution that doesn't include stopping the inflow of new family unit immigrants?
GAOne thing that might help some is a quick DNA test - it seems that many of these "family units" are nothing of the sort.
If the Trump administration had been thinking in humanitarian terms from the beginning, instead of law enforcement terms, they would at least be helping the situation instead of worsening it.
As I stated back when the first caravan was on its way, we are capable of incredible resourcefulness in times of crisis. The military can build temporary facilities to house and feed thousands of people quite quivkly. The Red Cross could be utilized. Instead, we pay a private company exhorbitant sums to provide substandard care.
This administration should be offering lawyers and judges high pay and other incentives to learn and perform the legal duties required to quickly and lawfully process asylum seekers. A lot of of this can be done via video chat. A similar recruitment should be done for interpreters, social workets,medical petsonnel, etc. Whatever it takes.
We should be working with the source countries to help them clear out the criminal element and provide for their citizens. This help should be proactive and ongoing until no longer needed. Instead, the Trump administration cuts off aid as "punishment." Stupid and shortsighted but his supporters eat it up.
This problem is not easy to deal with, but it can be handled much more humanely and efficiencly. It just takes the will and the competence to do so, neither of which is displayed by this administration."It just takes the will and the competence to do so, neither of which is displayed by this administration."
Apparently it just takes an acceptance that we are responsible to support and care for the rest of the world. Once that is done, solutions are obvious - they just take money, but we can always borrow more to care for foreign citizens.Remember Ms. this is a discussion, not a you are wrong and nuts response.
First, the root of this humanitarian crisis is a law enforcement problem Our immigration laws pull immigrants to our borders, rather than deter them.
The immigrant's own statements support this. They come knowing our laws force us to give then "A Notice to Appear' and then release them into our country.
How can we solve this humanitarian problem without also addressing one of the root causes of the problem?
Now, remember I have agreed with you. As things stand I think our only choice is to do what you suggest, but it will not solve the problem. For every immigrant, we process via this new and great surge of effort, many more will get the message that effort sends and head our way.
Can you see that the solution you propose and I agree with, (at least until Congress does its job), will only exacerbate this already decades-old problem?
Can you see that this demanded 'humanitarian' solution is only going to draw more immigrants and make the problem worse?
This compassion demanding a humanitarian solution to the images we see can do nothing less than turns us into the world's homeless shelter.
Geesh, I might have to turn into a "wall" supporter.
GAYou know, most people vastly prefer staying in their own familiar home country over traipsing thousands of miles to seek asylum in a foreign country with a different primary language and less familiar culture. If they do so, it is almost always because their life has become dangerous or untenable. We can change all the laws we want, but it won't make that potential immigrant more likely to stay in that dangerous or untenable situation. They will still flee. We might be able to decrease the numbers by becoming an unwelcoming country....oh, wait, hasn't Trump already tried that with his family separation policy? Did it "deter" anyone from fleeing their dangerous or untenable situation hoping for something better?
Sometimes we forget how this country was created...and why.
There is an enormous difference between how this country was created, and the current scenario.
People came here for the first couple hundred years for OPPORTUNITY...
For a chance at FREEDOM...
NOT for free housing, food and income.
People willingly sold themselves into INDENTURED SERVITUDE (just short of slavery and for many a fate just as bad, with lives just as short) for a chance to make a life for themselves here.
The difference between coming here with nothing promised, and a hefty price to pay for it... and being told you will be handed everything for free, for life, is very different... monumentally different.It's very easy, and very common, to pretend that because there were open borders 200 years ago we should have them now. That it is a different world, with very different conditions, is forgotten and set aside as we pretend nothing has changed. It is NOT the same world and pretending that it is, or that we do not have different needs, is unrealistic in the extreme.
"People came here for the first couple hundred years for OPPORTUNITY...
For a chance at FREEDOM...
NOT for free housing, food and income."
I have no issue with people who are concerned about immigration. I do have an issue with people who demonize people who are simply trying for a better life, by pretending they are freeloaders without offering anything other than anecdotal evidence. That is literally prejudice and xenophobia.
So can you provide evidence that the majority of asylum seekers who enter the country are unwilling to work, or can we safely dismiss this comment as xenophobia Ken?You can choose to dismiss whatever you want, however factual it is or not, this is the quintessential truth of our day, that there is no truth but that which a person chooses to believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur7KIYO8F1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJlOmMj21uM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBder6pUGWU
The reality is this, no one would try to come to America if they thought they would be treated the same way China or Russia or a hundred other nations deal with immigrants. They make their way to the UK, Canada, and America because they KNOW they will be taken care of, that their children will be taken care of, by the system.
As I said, I don't blame them, I would pack up my family and make my way to America to, if I were in their shoes... I know this as matter-of-factly as I packed up my family and moved from NY to FL... because it offered my family more opportunity, lower taxes, better weather, etc.A video of lots of black and brown people doesn't scare me Ken, and it certainly doesn't prove your point.
Neither does anecdotal evidence from a Faux News "journalist".
Neither does the fact that 8 immigrants are suing the government for taking their children away.
Where is your evidence that the majority of asylum seekers are freeloaders as you have suggested? If you have none, then what you said constitutes prejudice and xenophobia.
Question you have to ask yourself Ken is, am I'm only using those terms because that's what we on The Left label anyone who disagrees with us? Or am I using them because suggesting an entire group of foreign people are freeloaders without evidence, is literally prejudice and xenophobia. Think about it Ken.
Your opinion, not fact.
Yes, exactly this. and it diminishes any discussion or points you have.
The ability to express a point of view, without insulting, judging or labeling the other person(s) engaging in the discussion is usually the preferred method of getting other people to see the reason in your position."what you said constitutes prejudice and xenophobia."
"Your opinion, not fact."
Facts! Now we're talking Ken. I like facts.
Here's a fact. Prejudice is from the old latin praejudicium. That's prae "in advance" and judicium, meaning "judgement". So it literally means pre-judgement.
Here's another one. You suggested the majority of asylum seekers are freeloaders, apparently based on nothing but the fact they are asylum seekers. That is literally pre-judgement, or "prejudice" if you will.
Here's another fact. Xenophobia is from the old Greek xenos meaning "strange" or "foreigner", and phobos, meaning "fear". So it literally means fear of strangers or foreigners.
You said in this comment that asylum seekers will cause the economy to collapse, and will cause fear and violence to "become the norm here in America". Those asylum seekers are, by definition, foreigners. So you were demonstrating a fear of strangers/ foreigners, or "xenophobia" if you will.
So Ken, exactly which of those facts are you disputing?
"am I'm only using those terms because that's what we on The Left label anyone who disagrees with us?"
Yes, exactly this. and it diminishes any discussion or points you have.[/i]"
"Yes, exactly this. and it diminishes any discussion or points you have."
Oh dear Ken, that's not the right answer. As explained above I was calling you those things because that's literally what your comments are.
"The ability to express a point of view, without insulting, judging or labeling the other person(s) engaging in the discussion is usually the preferred method of getting other people to see the reason in your position."
No comment I have seen you make on this forum suggests you are able to see the "reason" in a position unless that position supports your view. You make a good show of appearing reasonable Ken, but most of your arguments (that I have seen) are either pulled straight from right-wing blogs and other dubious sources, or not supported by anything of substance. I offer your comments here as a case in point.
Obtaining facts from the most reliable sources you can find, is how you make a factual argument Ken. Making things up about people based on nothing but what they look like or where they come from is how you make prejudiced, xenophobic arguments.
I know the current president does the same thing, but if the current president jumped off a bridge would you follow? Of course you wouldn't. Well then, stop letting the president be a bad influence on you.You inferred from what I typed that I 'suggested' that. You read into the words what you wanted, that is not the same as fact.
That is not what I typed, that is not what is there... that you believe that is what is typed, or that you want to project it on to me, is far more telling about you.
This is exactly appropriate, for you.
OMG, I thought this thread was about problem-solving. So far we have a solution that suggests we overthrow several countries governments.
Come on people let's get serious. This all started with a pleasant plan to build towns for immigrants. Now we have the suggestion to troops all over the world... We can all do better."So, with those givens, what solutions might be proposed to fix the deplorable overcrowded and understaffed conditions at the border detention camps? And, should money not be a consideration?"
The money allocated by Congress will enable the government to construct more facilities, and hire more staff to run them. The money will also be spent to hire more judges to accelerate asylum applications ( new and backlogged). The bill is very clear how the money is to be spent. I would recommend reading the bill. In my opinion, this is a bandaid, that will need replacing frequently. It will somewhat alleviate poor conditions at the facilities, and perhaps work to catch up with the asylum backlog.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr3401/text
"Can you think of a detention camp solution that doesn't include stopping the inflow of new family unit immigrants??
If I am understanding you correctly, you are looking for solutions to keep up the flow of immigrants coming into America, but to make their experience more comfortable while they await their decisions on their applications for asylum. The only way we can continue handling the flow is to build more facilities. The new bill stipulates there is to be no overcrowding at our current facilities. (which actually is adding to the current problem). Not sure what Congress plans to do with all the people in the current facilities, while new facilities are constructed? So, the only solution would be catch and release at this point or just give up and have open borders.
We either slow the progression of migrants now and handle our backlogs and come up with new methods to apply for asylum. It very much seems we have hit a wall. Maybe time once again to put our heads in the sand...
Instead of a detention camp, what we need is a labor camp. If you come to this country seeking asylum, then while your case is being judged, you work to fund the cost of staying, just like you would if it were a hotel. By getting the labor in an exchange, we could use the money to create better camps. And perhaps those cities are on the Mexico side of the border and we work with Mexico to shuttle people in and out.
To be honest, I have no idea how to solve this problem and it doesn't seem like anyone else does either. It's not really that different than Palestine.Is that a 'chain gangs' type of proposal?
GAI don't think it needs to be punitive. I'm just saying, if you want to come into this country and stay here while your case is being ejudicated, then perhaps there has to be an exchange - your labor for the U.S. supplying food, water, and shelter. Those who perform well might receive more positive reviews or something. The companies who benefit from that labor would pay the government to subsidize the shelters.
Reasonable, at least as a discussion point. It would remain to figure out how to ensure contact and what to do with adults and minor children. Not unsolvable, at least if an honest effort is made rather than simply wringing hands and declaring that anything like that (workfare, just as we do for our citizens in some areas?) is unacceptable.
I'm genuinely trying to think of something because neither party has come close to figuring something out. I want to be humane and fair. Because America is such a land of opportunity, everyone wants to come here. By exchanging consideration for work, we convey the message about what it takes to succeed and that living here is not going to be some kind of free pass. Even better if the jobs these potential citizens get turn into real jobs.
I don't think that is a workable idea Crankalicious, Several important deal-breakers come to mind, but, as you say, for the sake of discussion let's look at it.
"Those who perform well might receive more positive reviews or something."
First, I don't think positive performance or behavior can have any consideration in their asylum request. Asylum isn't something you earn, you either qualify for it or you don't. So maybe that thought should be nixed?
Before we can go further we have to decide what would we use their labor for? Are we considering some type of project that would help decrease the overcrowding, (like Mike's desert towns or new detention facilities), or some way of defraying the costs of detention?
As food for thought, consider the make-up of the available labor pool. Of the families and minors population, which is what is exploding our detention facilities; two-thirds to three-quarters are 15-17 years old, and two-thirds to three-quarters of those are male.
I haven't seen numbers, but my perception is that the adult male population in these centers is a very small number.
Obviously, I think the posed questions point to problems I see with this idea, but I tried to not be too negative so this can be a discussion and not a 'you are wrong and I am right 'debate.
GAThe question really comes down to - what is our obligation to the people who come to our border? Technically, we don't have any obligation since they aren't citizens of this country. However, do we have an obligation to treat them humanely and consider their request for asylum? If so, then we need to house them I guess or turn them back and ask them to go elsewhere. That elsewhere, right now, is a Mexican town run by drug cartels even less equipped to handle them.
There are jobs here, so contract with companies (mostly agricultural I would guess) to hire these migrants in exchange for payment that provides them with housing. You'd need to set up different centers around the country where the most jobs were. The attraction for the companies is reduced wages while the attraction for the migrants is earning their stay.
Seems to beat what we're doing now.We could give them agricultural jobs currently held by green card holders. Of course, we'd just find those green card holders sneaking across the border one night...
GA has a point about the workers coming in vs those that expect us to just support them without doing anything themselves. Even so, with the numbers we're seeing (and the skill set) there just aren't enough jobs to go around. Sure, we can cobble together some "make work" tasks, but those aren't going to help pay the cost of supporting them for we don't truly need the task done.Lots of negativity with no alternative solutions. I presume you believe we should just close the borders completely?
That is certainly an option and one I don't necessarily disagree with. Just literally turn everyone around. Don't provide any facilities.
It's a cruel option though.Close them completely?
No. I have no problem with limited numbers of legal immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers. I DO have a problem with unlimited numbers of unskilled people demanding that the people of the US support them.
I fully support the concept being floated about only accepting those people that have something to actually contribute to the country (beyond grunt labor). And I fully support limited numbers of refugees. The problem is that we are taking anyone and everyone and then end up simply supporting them forever, and that's something that must stop. Cruel? Only if we disregard the huge negative effect on Americans that continued acceptance of millions of unskilled people will produce.
(Before you ask - I don't see even 100,000 immigrants per year doing great harm (say perhaps 10% unskilled)...if they assimilate. If they group on conclaves and try to continue their old lifestyle, or demand we convert to their philosophy then I most definitely see a problem.)I have no issue with accepting immigrants based on their skills. I mean, there should be a measurement based on education and work experience as to how likely that person will be to succeed in the U.S. We also have a need for unskilled labor, so obviously need to take in some unskilled laborers as well. Those laborers should be willing to relocate around the country where the need is greatest.
Just as an aside, where do you see people demanding that the people of the U.S. support them? Have you inferred that from somewhere? My general assumption about people coming here is that they are doing so to work, not to get a handout, because there's work here.
With Wilderness' point about agriculture jobs and displaced Green Card holders, let me point you back to the labor pool details of my previous response; teenagers and mom's with young kids. I don't think those demographics would fit well with your idea of further displacement, (set up different centers around the country), and an unknown time-frame.
But, but, wait ... that idea may work for detainees that have been found to have credible fears and are moved to the asylum court process because, (unless I am remembering wrong), those folks do get released from the detention centers in what's called an ATD program, (damn, can't remember what that stands for), that uses electronic ankle bracelets to monitor and ensure their appearance at their court hearings.
I say that may be a possibility because that court process can take from one to five years. A fair timeframe for temporary employment.
But even if that were a workable idea it wouldn't do anything to decrease detention center overcrowding because those folks, (those entering the court process), are going to be released from the centers anyway.
Oh well, back to the drawing board . . .
GAMy next suggestion would be to create a massive infrastructure jobs program. We have all this potential cheap labor and a very serious need to fix our nation's infrastructure. Put the two together!
Only if we go back to pick and shovel construction. Precious few illegals can operate a dozer, a backhoe or any other modern construction equipment. Most can't even read, let alone read a set of blueprints. Nor are they familiar at all with US rules and regulations concerning building codes or even workforce rules.
I just had a bunch of work done on my house. Pretty much every single person doing the manual labor was Hispanic and did not speak English, so I'm pretty sure there's plenty of manual labor out there still, particularly in a massive infrastructure project.
Well, after over 20 years in commercial construction (buildings, not Hoover Dams or even highways) my experience is there are lots of illegals doing simple work - laying sod, hand digging small ditches, driving nails. So yes, perhaps one out of 10 workers are unskilled labor. The rest were electricians, plumbers, HVAC workers, pipe fitters, steel workers - all the skilled trades that go into construction.
Going back some 40 years to a limited stint building a highway, I ran a crew of laborers, 5 of us compared to perhaps 40 cat skinners, truck drivers, backhoe operators, etc. And that doesn't count all those behind the scenes; secretaries, engineers, management, etc.
There is a place for pick and shovel workers, but it is more and more limited all the time. Few people that aren't a part of construction work understand the level of training, education and skill that goes into construction trades today.I am certainly not suggesting that construction does not require skilled labor, which it obviously does. I'm just saying that many jobs require a lot of unskilled labor, including construction and farming.
I always find it rather interesting that the vast majority of these positions seem to be filled by those of Hispanic heritage.
Do you think that is because they are being paid less money or because they are willing to do certain tasks others are not willing to do?Well, I'm a long time out of heavy construction so can't comment on that.
But buildings - that's not so far in my past. As I said, all the truly skilled jobs were not open to illegals (as opposed to those of Hispanic heritage), but perhaps 10% of the labor crew was. Yes, they are generally paid less money (because it's all under the table as hiring illegals is, well, illegal) and they are often worked like dogs for the same reason. I've watched as they are forced to jog everywhere they went, including carrying 2 sheets of 12' wallboard.
Willing to do tasks others won't? Not likely, but they ARE willing to take very low pay because there is nothing else. Sadly, I'm hearing that unions in my area are looking for illegals to join the union - a sure fire way to put union workers out of business.
I submit the following additional 'givens' which I think have implications for any proposed solutions:
6) Separating families with the stated goal of punishing them to deter others, is immoral and represents a failure to meet the country's legal obligations.
7) Leaving asylum seekers in squalid conditions to deter others, is immoral and represents a failure to meet the country's legal obligations.
8) Providing for the most basic human needs of asylum seekers while their claims are processed, is morally right.
9) The behavior of asylum seekers and economic migrants is driven by hope for a safer and more prosperous life. No government has ever defeated the capacity of human beings to hope for, and pursue, a better life.
10) The severity of measures taken to deter asylum claims, must be tempered by ethics.
11) Anyone within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution (regardless of their citizenship status) has constitutional rights, including a right to due process, right to legal counsel etc.
12) Democrats rule, Republicans drool.Well, I was going to respond, right up to the point I read #12. I think that one says it all: any self proclaimed moral guide than ends with name calling doesn't have anything at all to offer.
You know there was a time when 12 would have been so obviously ridiculous and absurd it would be taken as the joke it was intended to be. Alas times have changed.
Anyhoo, are you suggesting 6 - 11 are not a given?
You think it morally right to separate families to punish asylum seekers and deter others?
You think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government?
You think measures to deter asylum seekers should not be tempered by ethics?
You think people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights?
Is that what you are suggesting?You're putting your set of morals, and morals solely concerning illegal aliens, as the only thing possible, while ignoring the moral implications your philosophy has on the rest of the people.
Moral to separate children from parents that have committed a crime? We've done it since time began - how is it different now? When we jail a criminal is that moral, or should we set them all free if they have children?
Most of the people you're concerned about never had those "basic human needs" - what makes it morally imperative we supply them with it?
Did you consider the ethics of requiring others to give up what they have to support those asylum seekers? Why not?
They do not have the same rights as citizens do. It is not moral to require Americans to supply the world with the rights they supply themselves, as a nation, with.
Are you suggesting that American citizens are morally responsible for the care and support of the world's population? Sounds like it.Moral to separate children from parents that have committed a crime? We've done it since time began - how is it different now?
Again, it is not lawful to punish people for crossing the border illegally if they are eligible for asylum status. It's not possible to know if someone is eligible for asylum status until their case has been processed. Therefore punishing people before their case is process, is not only immoral (you may be separating families for no reason) it also means the government is failing to meet its legal obligations.
"Most of the people you're concerned about never had those "basic human needs" - what makes it morally imperative we supply them with it?"
Are you seriously suggesting asylum seekers be treated according to their level of comfort in the place they are seeking asylum from? So an asylum seeker from Somalia, for example, should not be given enough food or water if they were mostly thirsty and hungry in Somalia? Is that what you're suggesting? If so, what do you think might possibly be the issue with that wilderness? If that's not what you mean, please explain.
"They do not have the same rights as citizens do."
I didn't ask if they have the same rights citizens. I asked if you think people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution have constitutional rights? Are you suggesting they don't? You might want to do some research before you answer.Again, it is not lawful to punish people for crossing the border illegally if they are eligible for asylum status.
I get that you're trying to make a moral case that people coached to lie about their status be turned loose to disappear into the countryside and that we are morally responsible to care for them. I disagree, that's all.
Are you seriously suggesting asylum seekers be treated according to their level of comfort in the place they are seeking asylum from?
Again, I get that you're to make the claim that I am morally responsible to support people at the same level I support myself. Again, I disagree.
Finally, I don't think the framers of the constitution had in mind that our constitution applies to everyone in the world, within our borders or not. I get that liberals today are insisting that they do, but I disagree again. There was never an attempt to write our constitution for the world; only for the people of the United States. In any case, the constitution does not say that we are morally (or legally) required to support even American citizens, let alone citizens of a foreign country that are violating our laws. On the other hand, they have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that any other prison inmate has."I get that you're trying to make a moral case that people coached to lie about their status be turned loose to disappear into the countryside and that we are morally responsible to care for them. I disagree, that's all."
No, I'm saying that punishing asylum seekers for crossing the border illegally before you know if they are eligible for asylum (and therefore immune from prosecution for that crime), inevitably means some people are being punished for a crime the law says they have immunity from. If you also separate those people from their children as part of the punishment, then the separation is unnecessary.
I believe it's a given that separating families unnecessarily in a way that does not comply with the law is both immoral and unlawful. You are saying it's fine because essentially those asylum seekers are liars. So then it comes down to this simple question:
Is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've established if they are lying or not? Sorry but there are not two equal sides here. If you think it is right, then your sense of what is morally right and wrong is grossly distorted.
"Again, I get that you're to make the claim that I am morally responsible to support people at the same level I support myself. Again, I disagree."
I've made no such claim. I am saying it's a given than in civilized societies we don't deliberately starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities. Even criminals who have committed the most despicable crimes have their basic needs met. That is not a measure of their decency (they may have none) it's a measure of ours. Again, if you think providing for basic human needs is not a given, then not only is your moral compass is skewed, but you're also clearly unaware of several international treaties the US is a signatory of that requires the government to respect basic human rights.
"Finally, I don't think the framers of the constitution had in mind that our constitution applies to everyone in the world, within our borders or not."
This one is not debatable. It's just a matter of fact. Anyone within the jurisdiction of the Constitution is afforded constitutional rights. As per the American Bar Association:
". . . U.S. Supreme Court cases, dating back to 1886, have given undocumented immigrants the same rights as Americans in situations where laws or the constitution refer to "persons" or "people"
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew … act_check/
Are you suggesting asylum seekers are not people wilderness?
If not, then how is it not a given that asylum seekers have constitutional rights?No, I'm saying that punishing asylum seekers for crossing the border illegally before you know if they are eligible for asylum (and therefore immune from prosecution for that crime), inevitably means some people are being punished for a crime the law says they have immunity from.
Yes, I caught that you suddenly went from the morality of it to the legality. I responded to the original question; whether it was moral or not (the law often isn't). There is also the question of morality given the circumstances; we immorally demand thousands of times the taxes from the rich for the exact same thing - an immoral action - but if we don't we won't have a nation. Circumstances and necessity sometimes dictate immoral behavior and the invasion of our borders is one such time for we cannot continue to allow it to happen.
I've made no such claim. I am saying it's a given than in civilized societies we don't deliberately starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities.
No, you don't get to grossly exaggerate what is happening, turning it from not having a toothbrush into starving them to death. Doing so is not a moral action.
". . . U.S. Supreme Court cases, dating back to 1886, have given undocumented immigrants the same rights as Americans in situations where laws or the constitution refer to "persons" or "people"
OK - they have the same right to be jailed for breaking the law. You seem really, really hung up on this "asylum seekers" even though you have to know that the vast majority of the invasion does not meet the criteria. And they know the same thing or, at best, have made zero effort to find out if they do.
Don, you may find it reasonable for people to search for loopholes or lies that allow them to violate the intent of the law, but I don't. And I won't give them a break for doing so.By your reasoning in the last paragraph, you're apparently horrified at the way Trump is refusing to turn over his taxes despite lawful subpoenas, right?
Deflecting once again. Yesterday U.S. President Donald Trump scored a crucial victory in a Democratic-backed lawsuit that accuses him of violating anti-corruption provisions of the U.S. Constitution with his Washington hotel. The three-judge panel said the attorneys general lacked legal standing to bring the case. Looks like the Dems emollient BS just went out the window. They are using the emollient claim to justify seeing Trump's tax returns.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1U51VZ
It well appears Congress has little chance of getting Trump's tax records. Thier best chance appears to be impeaching the president. Oh but wait, one would have to have a piece of good evidence the president did "anything illegal". And just does not seem they do. Otherwise, this crazy bunch would have been in the middle of an impeachment trial. Maybe they are waiting to see what Mueller has to say next week? Maybe they should just admit they have nothing to impeach the president on and get on with doing what they were hired to do. Right now it so appears they are handing Trump a second term to keep America Great!
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … rns-226571
"Yes, I caught that you suddenly went from the morality of it to the legality . . ."
I haven't "suddenly" gone from morality to legality. I clearly said "I believe it's a given that separating families unnecessarily in a way that does not comply with the law is both immoral and unlawful". You are saying it's fine because essentially those asylum seekers are mostly liars, so then it comes down to a simple question which you have not answered:
Is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've even established if they are lying or not? To be clear, there are not two equal sides here wilderness. If you do think it is right, then your sense of morality is skewed to such an extent you no longer know the difference between right and wrong.
"No, you don't get to grossly exaggerate what is happening, turning it from not having a toothbrush into starving them to death. Doing so is not a moral action."
I made no such claim. I am merely telling you what basic human needs for a sanitary and safe environment are, and the consequences of not providing for them, as you apparently don't think it's a given that those needs are met. For a sanitary and safe environment people need: food, water, shelter, soap, a place to wash, a place to sleep etc. Do you know the consequences of not providing those things? If so then why is providing them not a given?
"OK - they have the same right to be jailed for breaking the law. You seem really, really hung up on this "asylum seekers" even though you have to know that the vast majority of the invasion does not meet the criteria. And they know the same thing or, at best, have made zero effort to find out if they do. . . . Don, you may find it reasonable for people to search for loopholes or lies that allow them to violate the intent of the law, but I don't. And I won't give them a break for doing so."
No, it means asylum seekers have the constitutional right to due process, legal counsel etc. just like anyone else. Isn't the Constitution an amazing thing!
And again, providing people with food, water, shelter, soap, a place to wash etc. is not giving them "a break", it's fulfilling our legal and ethical obligations. Yes, the government is morally and legally obliged to provide for the basic needs of people it detains. If you don't think that should be the case, then I understand North Korea has the standard of morality you (and the current administration) seem to desire."If you do think it is right, then your sense of morality is skewed to such an extent you no longer know the difference between right and wrong. "
Or you do not recognize necessity, preferring to use your own morality as a guide for the country. (Have you considered that "asylum seekers" from south of Mexico can only ask asylum in Mexico? Or is that something you just set aside and pretend isn't the law?)
"I made no such claim."
I apologize: I took your statement of "we don't deliberately starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities." as a claim it was happening. As it is not, your statement carries no meaning at all then, except as a "what if" that isn't, hasn't and won't happen.
No, it means asylum seekers have the constitutional right to due process, legal counsel etc. just like anyone else." (bolding added)
The Due Process Clause of the Amendment states that “no State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Yet, we jail those accused of a crime - are you suggesting that foreign asylum seekers are not subject to the same procedure? Or that it is unconstitutional to incarcerate someone until guilt/innocence can be determined?"Or you do not recognize necessity, preferring to use your own morality as a guide for the country. (Have you considered that "asylum seekers" from south of Mexico can only ask asylum in Mexico? Or is that something you just set aside and pretend isn't the law?)"
The way we treat other human beings is not a measure of their moral character. It is a measure of ours.
That is why even people in jail for the most heinous crimes, still have their basic human needs met. That's not my moral value. It's a moral value you will find throughout the country.
So vilifying asylum seekers to justify the idea that their basic needs should not be met, is not only a poor argument, it's also a reprehensible one.
"I apologize: I took your statement of "we don't deliberately starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities." as a claim it was happening. As it is not, your statement carries no meaning at all then, except as a "what if" that isn't, hasn't and won't happen."
It already is happening. As per my comment to GA, here is a DoJ lawyer arguing in court that providing children with soap, somewhere to sleep, and warmth has nothing to do with the "safe and sanitary" environment it is legally obliged to provide..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGLh7JOQHc
So government is not saying it can't provide those things for practical reasons. It's saying it has no obligation to. That's a big difference. Why should I, or anyone else, have confidence the government will fulfill its moral and legal responsibilities towards people it detains, when so far not doing so has been met with the support and approval of you and all the other members of the administration's base?
"Yet, we jail those accused of a crime - are you suggesting that foreign asylum seekers are not subject to the same procedure?"
Do we normally try those people, jail them, remove their children from them, make them serve their sentence in its entirety, and only then determine if they are telling the truth about mitigating factors that could mean they are immune from prosecution for the crime they have just been prosecuted, convicted and served a sentence for? Do we normally do that wilderness? Of course not, but that is what the Office of the Inspector General said is happening to immigrants under the "zero tolerance" policy.
So again it comes down to this simple question which you have not answered: is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've even established whether they are lying or not?"The way we treat other human beings is not a measure of their moral character. It is a measure of ours."
You now want to jump back to the morality rather than the legal. Please - stick to one or the other, for the two are NOT synonymous.
"here is a DoJ lawyer arguing in court that providing children with soap, somewhere to sleep, and warmth has nothing to do with the "safe and sanitary" environment it is legally obliged to provide.. "
You've now gone from "starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities." to having soap. I said once before that you are not allowed to grossly exaggerate claims in order to raise emotions - "it" (starvation and dehydration) are NOT happening and you know it as well as I do.
"Do we normally try those people, jail them, remove their children from them..."
Yes.
"make them serve their sentence in its entirety, and only then determine if they are telling the truth about mitigating factors that could mean they are immune from prosecution for the crime they have just been prosecuted"
No. And neither do we do it to asylum seekers, for the automatic sentence is deportation and they are not deported. Why are you equating incarceration until proof is found (one way or the other) with a sentence? You know it isn't - why are you saying it is?
"So again it comes down to this simple question which you have not answered: is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've even established whether they are lying or not?"
And once more you equate incarceration, awaiting "trial" with punishment. Once more, we jail people prior to trial every day, and it is not considered punishment; it is considered prudent action to prevent escape from trial. Just as it is with asylum seekers that have violated the law (they could, you know, apply from home). Your "simple question" is predicated on a lie that incarceration of asylum seekers is to punish them when it is plainly merely to prevent disappearing into the countryside forever. Spinning one thing into one that is vastly different is not moral or ethical."You now want to jump back to the morality rather than the legal. Please - stick to one or the other, for the two are NOT synonymous."
Good grief wilderness it's not rocket science. One thing can fall into two separate categories. That doesn't mean they are synonymous. It just means it falls into both categories. Separating families unnecessarily is both immoral and unlawful. They are not the same thing. It just falls into both categories. Understand?
Now stop deflecting. You are suggesting it's acceptable to separate families unnecessarily, and to not meet the basic needs of people in custody. Why are you advocating behavior towards asylum seekers that is both morally wrong and unlawful (that's two seperate things)?
"You've now gone from "starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities." to having soap."
Again, I made no such claim. You already accepted that was your misunderstanding when you apologized for it: "I apologize: I took your statement of "we don't deliberately starve people or force them to dehydrate, or die of disease through lack of washing facilities." Have you just forgotten, or are you now rescinding your apology?
I have said that the government is denying it is obliged to provide for the basic needs
of people in its custody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGLh7JOQHc
Do I have to explain that a place to sleep is a basic need? That warmth is a basic need? Now go ahead and justify the government arguing that those things have nothing to do with its legal obligation to provide a safe and sanitary environment for children. Go ahead. It's useful for you to demonstrate the depths to which this administration and some of its supporters are sinking.
"Do we normally try those people, jail them, remove their children from them..."
It's disingenuous to quote this on its own. That is not the question I asked. I asked:
"Do we normally try those people, jail them, remove their children from them, make them serve their sentence in its entirety, and only then determine if they are telling the truth about mitigating factors that could mean they are immune from prosecution"
The honest answer is no, we don't do that to people because it would be immoral, and because it violates the Constitution. As we've established, asylum seekers have constitutional rights. So why is acceptable for the government to violate the Constitution wilderness, but not acceptable for someone to cross the border illegally? Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.
"And neither do we do it to asylum seekers, for the automatic sentence is deportation and they are not deported."
The Congressional research Service begs to differ:
"As noted earlier, after adults have been tried in federal courts for illegal entry—and if convicted, have served their criminal sentences—they are transferred to ICE custody and placed in immigration detention. Typically, parents are then reunited in ICE family detention facilities with their children who have either remained in ORR custody or have been placed with a sponsor. Requests for asylum can also be pursued at this point" (my emphasis)
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf
Which part of that seems ambiguous to you? Still not convinced. Perhaps the DHS website will convince you that pepole are being prosecuted before their asylum claims are processed:
"Parents or legal guardians who are charged with illegal entry will be transferred from DHS to the Department of Justice, where they will be presented to a judge for a hearing on their criminal case. After completion of criminal proceedings, they will be transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration proceedings."
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/15/fre … osecutions
Again, is any of that ambiguous?
Ands again I ask the same question you have continually refused to answer: is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've even established whether they are lying or not?
Don, I have a question. After following this thread I have come away with some assumptions in regards to comments.
in your opinion do you think when any given person that crosses our border at a place other than the United States Border crossings, should be held in custody until they can be vetted either as an asylum seeker or just a person that hoped to sneak in and not be apprehended and deported rather quickly?
If an asylum seeker, should they be held in custody while their application goes before a judge to verify their claim?
Do you think the person asking for asylum should meet our current criteria in regards to why they need asylum, along with the required proof that their claim is valid?
Do you think a person that does not claim asylum when apprehended should be deported with good speed?
Don, It very much seems you let your emotions get in the way of common sense. It's well apparent that there are problems at the border, but it is also apparent for over six months now the Trump administration has been making attempts to solve the problems to the best of their ability. It's upsetting to see so many becoming hysterical all of a sudden with their moral outrage. These facilities are not new, they have been open for some years. Maybe time to have a look at a few of the truths of this situation. For one the last two administrations did nothing. Our current Congress has sat on their hands and turned a blind eye to this mess. And last, of all the border patrol and other agencies involved in day to day running of these facilities, are doing their best. Yur moral outrage should be at the people that have let it go on for so long. Bush, Obama, and the dead beat Congress for the Bush, Obama, and Trump terms. Stop wringing your hands, and make a call to your states representatives. Time for them to do what we hired them to do."in your opinion do you think when any given person that crosses our border at a place other than the United States Border crossings, should be held in custody until they can be vetted either as an asylum seeker or just a person that hoped to sneak in and not be apprehended and deported rather quickly?"
I'm having trouble parsing this question. Can you clarify what you are asking?
"If an asylum seeker, should they be held in custody while their application goes before a judge to verify their claim?"
A temporary period of detention while a claim is being assessed is reasonable and perfectly within the law.
Detaining asylum seekers, prosecuting them, removing their children, making them serve a sentence, and only then allowing them to proceed with their asylum claim, is not. It's immoral and unlawful.
"Do you think the person asking for asylum should meet our current criteria in regards to why they need asylum, along with the required proof that their claim is valid?"
Yes. There is an internationally agreed criteria for what makes someone eligible for asylum status. The current administration is trying to change the scope of that criteria in various ways and that is playing out in the courts. Whatever the outcome, it's is right that people must meet the criteria for asylum before being granted asylum status.
Do you think a person that does not claim asylum when apprehended should be deported with good speed?
Yes.
"It's well apparent that there are problems at the border, but it is also apparent for over six months now the Trump administration has been making attempts to solve the problems to the best of their ability."
But how can that be true when there are people, including kids, who can't even wash because they have no soap? Seriously what possible justification can there be for that?
And now we have government lawyers arguing in court saying that giving children soap, a place to sleep, and warmth has nothing to do with providing a "safe and sanitary" environment. Even the lawyer knows what she's saying is ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGLh7JOQHc
So I accept that there is a need to detain people who cross the border, illegally or otherwise, while they are processed either as asylum seekers or simply as unauthorized immigrants awaiting deportation.
But I do not accept that the government has no legal or moral obligation to provide for the basic human needs of the people in its custody. For me, and I believe every right-minded person, that is a given."A temporary period of detention while a claim is being assessed is reasonable and perfectly within the law. "
I assume that you find this moral, and it is exactly what we're doing. Yes, children are removed just as they are for accused criminals (guilty or innocent) that are citizens.
But let me ask you; when a deliberate, concerted effort is made to overload the legal system in the hopes you will escape the law entirely, is it moral? And what should we do, from a moral standpoint? Should we just let people go because they found a method to cry out "Inhumane" when they caused it themselves?"But I do not accept that the government has no legal or moral obligation to provide for the basic human needs of the people in its custody. For me, and I believe every right-minded person, that is a give"
I have witnessed many interviews with personnel that works in these facilities. They deny the stories that they are not providing showers, soap, toothbrushes, and act. I tend to believe them. The overcrowding has caused a problem, but I don't feel people are being treated inhumanely.
The government has finally allocated funds to make more staff, and supplies available.
In regards to separating children. I think if the person can not prove they are the parent They should be separated until DNA can be done. If they can prove they are the parent they should remain together. I also feel the person seeking asylum should be kept in custody until a decision is made on their application. I think this will act as a deterrent to many that are just seeking jobs. At this point, I am for deterring migrants from coming until our backlogs can be completed. This would be part of a solution to the overcrowding.The Office of the Inspector General reported that it has observed children with no access to washing facilities. Facilities with no laundry facilities. And some "had not provided children access to hot meals" as required by the government's own standard.
I see no reason to doubt the findings of the government's own Office of the Inspector General, which has no vested interest in lying about its observations.
This is the second time I have recommended that you read the report for yourself.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1The report recognizes the "extraordinary challenges" being faced at this time, and that efforts are being made to meet those challenges. It also says we need more changes.
Do you have an idea of what changes might be made (besides congress finally authorizing more beds for a crises that didn't exist just weeks ago)? And simply releasing them is not acceptable.
Sorry Don, but I reject 11 of your givens. I do accept #12 as long as you add the qualifier "dead."
However, I will admit that this agreement makes as much sense as the inference of your "givens."
You must be suffering from a drought of legitimate threads to join. I can understand your feeling. Maybe there are some citation opportunities in the "Concentration Camps" thread?
GAI'm glad you at least didn't take 12 as a serious suggestion. But same question to you as to wilderness.
You think it morally right to separate families to punish asylum seekers and deter others?
You think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government?
You have an example where a government has managed to remove all capacity to hope and pursue a better life?
You think measures to deter asylum seekers should not be tempered by ethics?
You think people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights?I will leave your "questions" ball in Wilderness' court.
We have discussed them before, I think my thoughts on those questions have been made clear before, and lastly, they fit in the category of that "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. So I will just pass on this opportunity.
GAI think you're over-complicating it. These are not trick questions.
If we're not able to say it's a given that any solution should take into ethical considerations into account, or that it's morally right to ensure people's most basic human needs, then something is very very wrong.No Don, I am not over complicating things. You are posing philosophical questions that are divorced from reality.
Of course, it is a moral "given" that basic human needs should be met, but if you have the capability to provide those basic needs for 100, are you immoral for not being able to provide them for 10,000?
That same question would apply to your other questions also.
GA"You are posing philosophical questions that are divorced from reality."
Here is a Justice Department lawyer arguing in federal court that providing children with soap, somewhere to sleep, and warmth has nothing to do with the "safe and sanitary" environment it is legally obliged to provide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGLh7JOQHc
So I don't accept this issue is "divorced from reality".
We are at the stage where the government literally needs to be told by a bench of judges that not giving people it has detained soap, a place to wash, a warm place to sleep, is unsafe and unsanitary. Explaining right and wrong in relation to how we treat human beings, is therefore not a matter of philosophy (I long for the day when it would be) but a matter of practical necessity.
"Of course, it is a moral "given" that basic human needs should be met, but if you have the capability to provide those basic needs for 100, are you immoral for not being able to provide them for 10,000?"
While it may be a moral "given" for you and I. Sadly the government does not appear to share that view, or at least the view that being able to sleep, wash and stay warm are basic human needs for a safe and sanitary environment.
And the operative word there is "should". I have no issue with that wording, i.e. it's a given that any solution should ensure basic human needs are met. 1. it does not rule out the practical possibility that extraordinary circumstances may negatively impact that endeavor temporarily (though they would truly need to be extraordinary circumstances); 2. it still places the commitment to provide for a safe and sanitary environment up front as a key principle, which is clearly (sadly) necessary.
At a time when immigrants are literally being hated on by the president and his supporters for simply wanting a better life and having the determination and ingenuity to trek thousands of miles to try to achieve it, the idea that basic human needs should be met, must be a fundamental guiding principle of any "solution" to the problem. Likewise, the idea that the measures taken to deter asylum seekers, must be tempered by ethical considerations.
There aren't two equal sides to this GA. The idea that the government should provide soap, warmth and a place to sleep to people it detains, is a given. The idea that deterrents should be tempered by ethics, is too. Sensible people need to say clearly that those who don't believe this (including the government) are lacking in moral judgement, relative to the best values and traditions of the country.You are free to provide all the soap and toothbrushes your version of morality requires of you.
You are NOT free to demand resources from someone else, simply because you think it should be done. That is unethical and immoral."should" and "extraordinary circumstances," there is the separation between the philosophical and reality.
GAI reject your suggestion that an issue with clear ethical implications should be divorced from those implications on the grounds that considering them constitutes "philosophy" and not reality.
Societies have values. Those values are very much a part of reality for people in society whose lives are impacted by them.
Failing to provide for the basic needs of people (including children) in custody, does not align with our social values.
It's easy to find solutions that solve the issue of immigration, but don't align with the our social values. The difficulty is finding solutions that solve the issue and align with those social values. That's why it's so hard.
Divorcing ethics and social values from political solutions only leads to dark places, especially when vulnerable people are involved. The current administration, and many of its supporters, are trying to take the easy route. They are looking for solutions that do not comport with our values for the sake of quick term "winning". It's narrow-minded and foolish.
So it's a given that government should meet the basic needs of people held in its custody, and I reject the idea that this is somehow not relevant, or not rooted in reality."Societies have values. Those values are very much a part of reality for people in society whose lives are impacted by them. "
Well said, and very true. Have you considered the impact on the people of America of unlimited immigration of poverty stricken, ignorant and unskilled people?"Well said, and very true. Have you considered the impact on the people of America of unlimited immigration of poverty stricken, ignorant and unskilled people?"
Wilderness there's a difference between being concerned about immigration (which I am) and being so overcome by fear and prejudice that you begrudge giving kids some soap to wash (which you and the current administration apparently are).
You've spent several pages arguing that we shouldn't provide for the basic needs of people in custody, including children. The government has argued in court that giving kids a warm place to sleep has nothing to do with a safe and sanitary environment.
That is what being overcome by fear and prejudice looks like, and it's insanity.
But here's the thing you need to understand. That doesn't mean I think we should do nothing about immigration. And it doesn't mean I think we should have no border controls, or we shouldn't deport people crossing the border illegally who are not claiming asylum.
We can do all of that wilderness. We just don't need to be small-minded d*cks about it. And that's what begrudging a kid some soap to wash is.
Yes, finding solutions that work, meet our legal obligations, and align with our social values, is harder than just treating people like animals because we have guns and they don't, but that's the difference between this country and say China, or North Korea.
And this issue isn't beyond us. We can figure out how to deal with it in a way that serves the interests of the country, but also live up to the values that have always separated us from those other countries.
To do that though, people need to take some deep breaths and calm down. The collapse of the country isn't happening any time soon wilderness, believe me.
We need to be rational and focused on what matters. Not giving kids soap and a warm place to sleep isn't going to help solve the issue of immigration. Everyone who thinks it will, is of no use when it comes to finding a sensible, sustainable solution to the problem."Wilderness there's a difference between being concerned about immigration (which I am) and being so overcome by fear and prejudice that you begrudge giving kids some soap to wash (which you and the current administration apparently are)."
No, it's the difference between pretending it's all about a bar of soap and recognizing that it is about tens of millions (or billions) of dollars going to support millions of people from other countries. You can pretend all you want but that doesn't negate the effect on the people of America. Assigning prejudice (racism) to motives doesn't make it so, either.
"And this issue isn't beyond us. We can figure out how to deal with it in a way that serves the interests of the country,"
Yes we can. We can control our borders and we can set limits on how many people we will accept OR even consider for asylum. Except that doesn't appear acceptable to the left; the only thing they seem to recognize is that we support unlimited immigration to anyone that can get here, and that is NOT in the best interests of this country.
Actually, it is. We are already supporting some 20 million illegal aliens within our borders - adding another few million or so every year will destroy our culture and economy within just a couple of decades.
Hi GA , We are all sticking to one of your premises of the discussion correct?
"The conditions at the detention camps* can be honestly described at substandard at best and deplorable at worst."
I watched the clip Don W linked to earlier in the week, and it is pretty horrible.
We can all agree that if we are going to hold them here, we can at least provide soap, warmth, and somewhere to sleep correct? I mean, as a nation, we have the means.
This is a genuine question as I'm genuinely puzzled. The shortest term goal should be to make the centers safe and sanitary, and I'm not even concerned about putting the blame on Trump, or anyone, it just needs to get done.hard sun, let me address your statement with the reality I have been trying to get Don to recognize.
"We can all agree that if we are going to hold them here, we can at least provide soap, warmth, and somewhere to sleep correct? I mean, as a nation, we have the means."
To address the most obvious first; "somewhere to sleep." If you have a facility designed to accommodate 100 and you must now put 500 in it--I say "must" because there are 500 at the door--then the only place they can sleep is on the floor. That is not a punitive political decision, it is the reality of physical space.
The only other choice is to turn 400 of those 500 loose into the country. Or, leave them standing at the door and admit more as more leave the facility. Which is more humane; letting them in even if they have to sleep on the floor, or leave them outside in the elements because only 100 beds are available? And that isn't even addressing the point of following our own laws.
Using the same example for a larger facility; if a facility has a 3000 capacity, and has the resources, (blankets, food, and yes, toothbrushes and toothpaste), for 3000 and there are 9000 lined up at the door, is it our inhumane treatment that we don't have that extra 6000 worth of blankets, food, and toothbrushes?
That is the reality of the scenario. I would bet that all these facilities are scrambling, both money-wise, (budgetarily), and logistically, (placing orders and awaiting delivery), to get more of the basic human rights necessities' for their facilities, but in the meantime the adversarial folks and the anti-Trump folks are screaming to high heaven and posting "terrible" images all over the public media.
I do not accept that our personnel at these detention centers are uncaring cold-hearted monsters that are gleefully forcing kids to sleep on a concrete floor when the reality is that that floor is absolutely the only available space available--yet this is how they are portrayed in the effort to bash Pres. Trump with this very "not new" situation.
Have you seen the latest, (as in today's press opportunity), female Representative's descriptions of the 'chillldren' they saw in clothes that were soiled with vomit, nasal drip, and other vile things?
Now it appears that we are denying basic human rights because a facility designed for 100 doesn't have laundry facilities and replacement clothing for 1000. Geesh.
It is a sad situation hard sun. I am not diminishing that, but, it is not a 'new' situation as it is being portrayed.
It is the facts of the reality on the ground. As previously noted, the CBP is being asked to perform as Jesus did with his water into wine and 5 loaves of bread feeding 15,000.
Sorry for the rant, (as you would say), but I truly think our CBP folks are doing the very best they can with what they have. And I also truly believe the politics of this are that this situation is being used as a club to bash Pres. Trump, not an outcry over past failed political efforts.
I am not defending Trump, I am calling out the hypocrisy of those that are using this catastrophe for political points.
[EDIT ADDED] I didn't go back to check this, but it is relative to my point about the "reality" of things; I think I recall that past administrations have each incrementally increased things; both Bush and Obama increased border patrol personnel, and I think both also expanded detention facility capacities, but the reality is that the massive increase in family and minors crossing, or at our border, (I think I saw a number somewhere that said there has been an 864% increase since 2015), have just overwhelmed our facilities.
You can place the blame where you want, but I don't think it all deserves to be at Trump's doorstep.
GAMakes sense GA and I don't disagree. I already stated in a convo with Wilderness that I don't think there is a way to deal with so many people in an entirely humane way and that's why we need to stop them from coming in. I also already stated I didn't put all the blame on Trump, and I agree that there is some major hypocrisy going on with this on the left, and I doubt it's a new situation. That's just a little as to where I'm coming from on this.
I also don't go for the demonizing of all the personnel at the border stations/detention centers. I even see the reality of the situation.
Where it troubles me, is with the administration's attorneys arguing that they don't need soap, toothbrush mattresses, etc., to comply with the "safe and sanitary" definition. This is different than stating we just can't get it done. Maybe they are doing this simply because they are overwhelmed, but the argument they make is not encouraging as to whether or not the administration is doing all it can. --I do understand that Congress stood in the way of some things Trump wanted to do that MAY have helped, but we must deal with what we have now.
I also even see your point about the reality of the situation. My only point is, don't we have the means to build more facilities, buy more beds, toothbrushes, etc. I understand this likely can't happen overnight, but it should be able to happen pretty fast. It's not a solution, but it seems it needs to happen.
We may be asking the CBP "to perform as Jesus did with his water into wine and 5 loaves of bread feeding 15,000." Which is entirely impossible anyway, and I doubt anyone has ever done as the evidence leads me to think otherwise.
My concern is are the proper efforts being made to get it done ASAP? Maybe they are, IDK. Or, maybe we should process some applications ASAP and get some people on buses back to Honduras. I think it's reasonable to want every effort to be made here and think we can make a difference, despite the trying circumstances.
Once again, to me this isn't about all the media nonsense, and I agree with everything your stating GA. I just have concerns as we all should have. The point is to find solutions right, not pass blame, even though that's what much of the media and the left is doing.
America can build more detention facilities...we are number one at that. The centers should not have to scramble, and if they are, that's all of Washington's fault."My only point is, don't we have the means to build more facilities, buy more beds, toothbrushes, etc. I understand this likely can't happen overnight, but it should be able to happen pretty fast."
We could put up tent cities in less than a month, but you and I both know that isn't going to stop the screams for even one second, and tent cities will still have utilities to worry about. Most tents do not have a sewer line to them.
Anything longer takes months and months; even if the land is already available (with utilities on site) the underground utility work will take a month or two all by itself for a single building to house even a few hundred. These things do NOT happen overnight.
(Will there have to be an environmental impact statement? Add another 2 years minimum and you can be it will be longer as the crowd that wants to boycott over buying beds files suit.)Good points that highlight why there's no real humanitarian way to house so many people. I mean, I would say bring in port-a-pots and set up the tents. What the else are we supposed to do besides just let them all run free unchecked in our country or let them lose in Mexico for them to deal with? I mean they won't even let run free in our own country without an ID so they can criminal checks on us, etc. But, as you say, nothing will be good enough for the bed-boycotting crowd.
The VAST majority of Americans want what is best for everyone; treating everyone as humanely as possible. To an extent, it is those that scream the loudest about atrocities that are keeping that goal from happening.
I just read where Trump agreed to allow a Stanford University pediatrician to do independent health checks/investigations. That seems like a good move for the welfare of the people there. You know what I think of Trump, and his war on the "Deep State." However, the guy hasn't proved to be a monster and he may do something correct now and then. He'd be more likely to lose in 2020 if the mainstream media would at least recognize this IMO."What the else are we supposed to do besides just let them all run free unchecked in our country..."
Given the number of sanctuary cities, forbidding police or anyone else to notify ICE when an illegal alien is found while making public when ICE is the neighborhood ("Run! The cops will be here tomorrow!), letting them run loose is exactly what is desired.
I see where someone is suing one of those cities because an illegal harmed their child. While I don't expect it to go anywhere, it is a sign that not everyone agrees with open borders and unlimited immigration.Yes. I think the Dems will have major electability issues if they continue with this come the general elections.
As to the ICE issue, why is that if Americans have warrants out for their arrest, there's no issue with law-enforcement agencies cooperating with one another? American felons often cannot even rent apartments, yet we are supposed to let illegal immigrants run free unchecked despite what they may have done in the past and may be doing now?
Some even say it's racist to state the obvious here...some of these illegal immigrants are criminals, and they have more rights than Americans. I've personally spoken with illegal immigrant criminals who laugh about how they will get busted, go to prison for a short time and then come right back to the US after being deported.
Of course, I must state that many of these immigrants are good people. I probably need to avoid immigration news for a spell as this is mind-boggling to me.
I'd like to combine a reply to your response to Hard Sun, and a previous comment to me.
"Whatever you may take as the position and intentions of " [T]he current administration, and many of its supporters . . . " it is my view that you take that perception as a political stance not influenced by the reality of the circumstances on the ground."
It's not just merely perception. When the government argues that soap, warmth, and a place to sleep have nothing to do with providing a safe and sanitary environment, that is a political stance, and it impacts the reality of circumstances on the ground. How could it not?
So this situation is just as much about the government's willingness (or lack of) to accept its moral and legal responsibilities towards people in its custody, as it is the government's ability to do that. The two cannot reasonably be divorced from each other.
"Using the same example for a larger facility; if a facility has a 3000 capacity, and has the resources, (blankets, food, and yes, toothbrushes and toothpaste), for 3000 and there are 9000 lined up at the door, is it our inhumane treatment that we don't have that extra 6000 worth of blankets, food, and toothbrushes?"
I don't accept the implied characterization of this situation as some kind of unfortunate, unforeseen circumstance the government is doing its best to manage.
If you set out to detain more people, you need to be able to hold more people. That's commons sense.
In 20016 the government decided to prosecute everyone who crossed the border illegally, on the grounds it was necessary to uphold the rule of law. It called it's new policy the "zero tolerance" approach (and conveniently forgot to mention that people eligible for asylum are immune from prosecution for illegal entry because apparently the rule of law is not important when it protects immigrants).
It's entirely predictable that such a policy would generate a massive increase in the number of people being detained, including the number of children that would be separated from their parents. The DHS was woefully ill-prepared for the new policy. Increases in capacity were ridiculously small relative to the increase in detentions the new policy would generate. Even worse, while the government encouraged people to seek asylum at ports of entry, the CBP was restricting access, causing huge backlogs, which led people trying to cross illegally, and therefore more people being detained for longer:
"While the stated intentions behind metering may be reasonable, the practice may have unintended consequences. For instance, OIG saw evidence that limiting the volume of asylum-seekers entering at ports of entry leads some aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the border illegally. ".
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/f … -Sep18.pdf
Fast forward two years and the administration now says there isn't enough space to hold all the people it has detained. Well no sh*t Sherlock! That's something a 5 year old could have predicted. Even without any increase in the number of asylum seekers, there would not have been enough space to hold all the additional people being detained.
So this is not about government struggling to manage unforeseen circumstances. It's about a combination of incompetence, and an unwillingness by the administration and it's enablers, to accept the government's legal and moral responsibilities to those in its custody.
Here's a response to the appalling conditions from a Republican Party Congressman:
"You know what? There’s not a lock on the door. Any child is free to leave at any time, but they don’t. You know why? Because they are well taken care of."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … rgess.html
Let that sink in.
2. I don't buy that the logistical challenge resulting from the government's incompetence is something that can't be resolved in short order.
I seem to remember Trump deploying the military to the border to assist with the logistics of protecting the country from all those dangerous unarmed men, women and children seeking asylum. Now all of a sudden, we can't even organize some extra soap and blankets? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
I accept building additional facilities etc. to increase overall capacity takes more time, but there's no excuse for the prolonged lack of basic necessities reported by various observers, including the Office of the Inspector General.
Even better, what alternatives are there to detention?
"That is the reality of the scenario. I would bet that all these facilities are scrambling, both money-wise, (budgetarily), and logistically, (placing orders and awaiting delivery), to get more of the basic human rights necessities' for their facilities, but in the meantime the adversarial folks and the anti-Trump folks are screaming to high heaven and posting "terrible" images all over the public media."
Meanwhile, the government is in court arguing it doesn't need to provide some of those basic necessities. But, for sake of argument, let's say it's purely a matter of logistics related to the increase in people being detained. Is expecting the government to adequately plan for the implementation of its own policies, unreasonable?
And no, highlighting the unnecessary suffering this situation is causing people in detention, is not merely a case of being "anti-Trump" and Trump-bashing. That implies the criticism are not valid. Using pejorative terms against people raising what are very clearly valid criticisms, serves only to silence those criticisms and I'm disappointed to see you doing that.
"I do not accept that our personnel at these detention centers are uncaring cold-hearted monsters that are gleefully forcing kids to sleep on a concrete floor when the reality is that that floor is absolutely the only available space available--yet this is how they are portrayed in the effort to bash Pres. Trump with this very "not new" situation."
I have no reason to believe the vast majority of staff at these facilities are not all hard-working professionals. But let's not pretend these people are not human beings, and not subject to the same faults and failings as others:
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection was aware of the inflammatory Facebook page where alleged Border Patrol agents posted racist, sexist and violent images . . . The office carried out an inquiry and took disciplinary action, but the official did not say how many employees were involved or what sort of discipline was dispensed"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … it-before/
"Border Patrol leadership reportedly knew about derogatory Facebook group for years"
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … ook-groups
If some (hopefully a minority) of officials are expressing such views publicly on social media, you have no idea what they may or may not be thinking, or doing, in the privacy of the environment you describe. As I say, hopefully the majority are indeed hard-working professionals, but let's not be naive about what happens when some people are given power of vulnerable individuals. If you're interest in the psychological underpinnings of those effects, check out the "Stanford prison experiment".
"Now it appears that we are denying basic human rights because a facility designed for 100 doesn't have laundry facilities and replacement clothing for 1000. Geesh."
No the government appears that it is denying human rights because 1. it argued in court that it has no obligation to provide basic necessities for children; and 2. because in implemented a policy 2 years ago that it knew would result in a huge increase in people being detained, and evidently didn't adequately plan for the effects of that.
"It is the facts of the reality on the ground. As previously noted, the CBP is being asked to perform as Jesus did with his water into wine and 5 loaves of bread feeding 15,000."
If the CBP is in a difficult position, it's in that position because of the ineptitude of the current administration.
"Sorry for the rant, (as you would say), but I truly think our CBP folks are doing the very best they can with what they have. And I also truly believe the politics of this are that this situation is being used as a club to bash Pres. Trump, not an outcry over past failed political efforts."
Rant away. Frank discussion is not a bad thing. I'm being frank when I say the excuse of "Trump-bashing" has past its shelf-life. As far as I can see, you believe holding the current president responsible for anything his administration says or does is Trump-bashing. Obviously I disagree."Fast forward two years and the administration now says there isn't enough space to hold all the people it has detained. Well no sh*t Sherlock!"
You're right - it could have been predicted. And was, as Trump repeatedly said our border was in crises...while Democrats repeatedly denied there was a crises there.
But still, it's all Trump's fault for trying to enforce the law with the inadequate resources he was given. Right.You're still avoiding my question.
Is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've even established whether they are lying or not?
That is what the current administration has been doing:
"As noted earlier, after adults have been tried in federal courts for illegal entry—and if convicted, have served their criminal sentences—they are transferred to ICE custody and placed in immigration detention. Typically, parents are then reunited in ICE family detention facilities with their children who have either remained in ORR custody or have been placed with a sponsor. Requests for asylum can also be pursued at this point" (my emphasis)
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf
"Parents or legal guardians who are charged with illegal entry will be transferred from DHS to the Department of Justice, where they will be presented to a judge for a hearing on their criminal case. After completion of criminal proceedings, they will be transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration proceedings."
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/15/fre … osecutions
People eligible for asylum are immune from prosecution for illegal entry. So prosecuting people for illegal entry before you even know if they are eligible for asylum means the government has inevitably unlawfully prosecuted people. In fact it has prosecuted and convicted people before they have even been allowed to claim asylum. The children of these asylum seekers are also removed from their parents custody. Is it morally right to do this? And does it meet the country's legal obligations?"Is it morally and legally right to punish people for lying about their asylum claims before you've even established whether they are lying or not? "
You keep asking this, as if it were happening. It is not, so why are you asking it? Are you looking forward to the future when it might happen or just trying to insinuate that the reason for incarceration is to punish rather than contain?
Punishment without trial is immoral; containment until trial is not; we've been over that and as I recall you agreed that it is moral to contain until trial. Exactly what is being done.
"People eligible for asylum are immune from prosecution for illegal entry."
Only for illegal entry to the first country they come to. As the vast majority any more do not meet this criteria I'm a little confused what you're referencing.
"The children of these asylum seekers are also removed from their parents custody. Is it morally right to do this?"
Yes, we do it with every criminally charged person we hold for trial. Crossing the border is no different, and it most certainly does meet the country's legal obligations...while releasing criminals into society with no hope of seeing them again does not.Just a comment on the "first country" concept. We have no first country agreement with Mexico:
"Under a 2004 agreement, U.S. immigration authorities can reject asylum claims made by third country nationals who transited through Canada before arriving at the American border. The policy works the other way, so Canadian officials can also turn around applicants who were first in the U.S.
The agreement codifies the idea that asylum is meant to shelter people in the first safe country in which they arrive, not a country based on asylum seekers’ economic preferences.
“When a significant number of individuals bypass an opportunity to seek protection in one country in order to achieve a migration outcome based on economic, cultural or social preferences, the objective of asylum systems — to provide protection to those who are fleeing persecution or torture — may become distorted,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote in a report on the safe third country agreement.
Washington does not have an analogous agreement with Mexico City. This means that people from third countries who traverse through Mexico to claim asylum in the U.S. cannot be turned around to pursue their claims in Mexico."
https://www.libertyheadlines.com/the-bi … -by-trump/I will break it down for you as I have for others:
- Person A and their children are apprehended crossing the border illegally by the CPB (no issue)
- Person A and their children are detained and taken into custody by the CPB (no issue)
- Person A is immediately charged with crossing the border illegally, referred to the DoJ for prosecution, and their children removed from their custody to deter others from crossing the border illegally, before they have been allowed to apply for asylum (red flag - without processing this person's asylum claim, it's not possible to know whether they are immune from prosecution, and therefore impossible for the government to meet its legal obligations)
- Person A is convicted of crossing the border illegally and sentenced, before they have even been allowed to apply for asylum (red flag - again without processing the person's claim you have no idea what the circumstances are, which makes it impossible for government to know whether this person is in fact immune from prosecution. As the person is now convicted, if they do meet the requirements for immunity, the government has acted unlawfully).
- Person A serves a custodial sentence for illegal border crossing, before they have even been allowed to apply for asylum (red flag for all the reasons above)
- Person A, after serving their sentence, is reunited with their children (assuming the government can trace where the children are) (red flag - if the circumstances of the families asylum claim mean they are immune from prosecution, this family has been unnecessarily separated, and the parents convicted unlawfully)
- Person A and their children are sent to an ICE detention facility
- Person A is finally allowed to apply for asylum
"Only for illegal entry to the first country they come to. As the vast majority any more do not meet this criteria I'm a little confused what you're referencing. "
No. It's if they come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is not threatened. How do you know if someone meets that criteria if you don't know the circumstances of their claim? That's the point. It's impossible for the government to meet its legal obligations without processing the person's asylum claim first.
What is the point of taking up space in detention facilities and clogging up the courts with people who are literally immune from prosecution? On average, around 2,000 people per month are found to be eligible for asylum status.
"Yes, we do it with every criminally charged person we hold for trial. Crossing the border is no different, and it most certainly does meet the country's legal obligations..."
Again, this is not about holding people for trial. The issue is convicting people and removing their children, before you know if their circumstances make them immune from prosecution or not. And if you think things like this are not happening, think again:
"A Mexican woman who crossed the border in search of protection and immediately sought assistance from border agents, was referred for criminal prosecution by CBP, convicted of illegal entry in November 2017 in Tucson, Arizona, and then deported back to Mexico despite her request to be interviewed by a U.S. asylum officer."
"A Honduran woman who fled death threats called U.S. authorities after she safely crossed the border but was referred for criminal prosecution and convicted of illegal entry in a group hearing in December 2017 even though she told U.S. border officers she wanted to seek asylum".
"An asylum seeker severely persecuted in Mexico due to his sexual orientation was referred for criminal prosecution by CBP; during criminal proceedings, DOJ told his lawyers it would increase the recommended criminal sentence if he refused to waive his right to seek asylum."
". . . . no federal district along the border has a policy of exempting asylum seekers from criminal prosecution."
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/ … grants.pdf
Again, are any of these actions morally right and lawful? I love seeing the mental gymnastics you do trying to avoid admitting they are wrong.Allow me to "lay it out for you":
Person A enters the country. Liberals demand they be released into society rather than incarcerating them until any possible claim can be examined. Person A disappears, never to be seen again, as sanctuary cities the country over hide and protect them. Completely unacceptable, and it makes incarceration not only necessary but morally justified as the result is to evade the law indefinitely if they are not. Exactly the same justification as criminals awaiting trial.
(Of course, that does not address their being punished before being tried, but we've discussed this at length and you have agreed that incarceration awaiting trial is not intended, or used, as punishment.)
I'll also add that none of your three examples have a valid claim for asylum as I understand it. Mexico is not a country of violence everywhere (if you live within cartel activity move 50 miles away, not 1,000 to America), the Honduran came through Mexico and should have applied there and being gay and "persecuted" for it is not a reason.
I love seeing you continue to claim that all asylum seekers have a claim requiring indefinite support and care when we both know it is not true."Person A enters the country. Liberals demand they be released into society rather than incarcerating them until any possible claim can be examined . . . "
Please point out where I made any such demand. If you can't, why are you misrepresenting my views?
As to your point, again either the rule of law is important or it isn't. You can't claim upholding the rule of law is important when it comes to stopping asylum seekers crossing the border illegally, but not important when it comes to the government breaking federal law by not letting people claim asylum. It's self-defeating.
"Of course, that does not address their being punished before being tried, but we've discussed this at length and you have agreed that incarceration awaiting trial is not intended, or used, as punishment."
I accepted no such thing. I have accepted that detaining people when they are apprehended crossing the border illegally is reasonable, as is detaining them for reasonable periods while their asylum claim is processed. And yes, if their asylum claim fails, detaining them until deportation arrangements are made etc. All reasonable. But for the third of fourth time now, that is not what is happening.
"I'll also add that none of your three examples have a valid claim for asylum as I understand it."
It is not for you to decide who is eligible for asylum. That's the point. People eligible for asylum are immune from prosecution for illegal, and anyone present in the country can claim asylum, regardless of how they got into it. But people are being convicted and sentenced before being allowed to claim asylum, making it impossible for government to meet its legal obligations. And in some cases convicted, sentenced and deported without being allowed to claim asylum at all, which violates federal law, which I'm certain you know by now.
In case you have forgotten what federal law says, here is a reminder:
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section . . ."
Now answer the question, in light of what you know the law to be, is convicting and deporting asylum seekers who are present in the country without letting them claim asylum at all, lawful and morally right? And is convicting people before their asylum claims are heard, lawful and morally right?Should we discuss international law, and the agreements we signed with other countries? There are at least a couple of threads on them, and they don't agree with what you're saying.
So should not that discussion come before any declaration that we have a legal obligation to support anyone asking asylum indefinitely Because I caught your "reasonable" times, and recognize that it means a couple of days to you, but it doesn't to anyone else. I also caught that you believe any that can mouth the word "asylum" means we have to support them until they can have a court date and be deported, but that is not in agreement with international law.
"No. It's if they come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is not threatened. How do you know if someone meets that criteria if you don't know the circumstances of their claim? That's the point. "
I'm reiterating that there is a way to determine "first country" status and I've repeatedly linked to it since GA, I belive introduced the idea of "first country" and changing our asylum laws.
This status is based on agreements between two nations!
We know immediately if a person doesn't meet the criteria for first country status if that person comes from Mexico and if that person comes from Canada. We have an agreement with Canada that means they are considered a safe first country. We have no such agreement with Mexico, so we cannot legally turn asylum seekers back for coming from Mexico unless we can prove they passed through a country we have a safe country agreement with between there country of origin and Mexico.
I think we need such an agreement.
https://cis.org/Arthur/Caravan-Points-O … n=addtoany
http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06/01 … SvPvehKjcs
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/worl … sylum.html
Our government should have been ready. However, I thought the same thing as far as the Democrats and the media stating there is no crisis and now they say there is a big one.
Then there's this from April 14: "NBC News on Friday reported that Trump wants to send even more military troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to build and maintain detention camps for migrants who do not fit in existing facilities. However, U.S. law — specifically the Posse Comitatus Act — bans the military from conducting domestic policing, hampering Trump’s plan"
In reading that act, I'm not sure building facilties would be a violation. At any rate, who would, or should, fuss about it??? https://www.nationalmemo/trump-dispatch … reloaded=1
I did find that the act "does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor." https://military.wikia/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act ---So do the state governors share some blame here?
The National Memo article goes on:
"This is just the latest grotesque proposal Trump has thought up as he grows angrier and angrier about the fact that brown people want to come to the U.S."
I'm not a Trump fan, but come on, it was grotesque for Trump to suggest building more facilities back in April? This "outrage" is not helping anything.I'm not sure that government could, or should have, predicted idiots and foreign agents building massive caravans of "asylum seekers", teaching them how to avoid the amnesty laws, and assisting them to trek thousands of miles through multiple countries to reach our border. Or the Mexican response of providing and supporting them. I'm not sure government should have predicted that the majority faction would declare "There is no crises" when it was so self evident - we expect more from our legislators. Given the time necessary to build additional facilities, it would all have to have been seen at least several years ago, and that doesn't seem possible. Remember, Trump could never be elected so there was no reason to think he would ever try and do anything about illegal border crossings.
Yes, it is becoming more popular to play the race card, however irrelevant it might be, as it becomes more and more obvious that Trump was absolutely right: we have a crises at our border that must be dealt with.Whether it would have been too late or not, Trump was grotesque fur suggesting building more facilities. Now that same site has articles condemning the non-working faucets and overall condition of the facilities.
Our legislators were too busy trying to score political points to solve a problem in any way..that wasn't a problem, but now is a problem.Yep - it's all about politics. Demonize the president because a faucet is broken and there isn't enough beds for the inmates...while boycotting the people who will sell those beds for the centers.
It's a problem all right, but the biggest problem is trying to shift the blame to the president rather than to the people that caused it in the first place by ignoring it.
oh gaawwdd Don, I am almost distraught that I have to jump into the cesspool of defending that horrendous video of 'the government arguing against providing toothbrushes', but to address your comment that is where I find myself.
So grab a drink and a snack bud, because this might take awhile.
So, the first thing to do is establish what is true versus what you are claiming. Here is an unedite4d, uncommentated, unbiased version of those court proceedings: Justice Department Argues Against Providing Soap, Toothbrushes, Beds To Detained Kids. I t is an hour and four minutes long, and all of it is pertinent to the claim.
The government, (bless her soul), was arguing the validity of a previous agreement that had subsequently been amended. The government was not arguing against the validity of providing toothbrushes and soap. Take a look for yourself; starting at :25 through 2:15
Then follow that the discussion between the court and the government's lawyer dwelt solely on the issue of the amended previous agreement - not whether toothbrushes and soap were "safe and sanitary" requirements. This follows from 2:15 through 6:56 when it is the court that introduces toothbrushes to the issue - in the context that it relates to this court's jurisdiction. The government did not introduce or argue the toothbrush or soap issue.
Continuing . . . then, starting at 13:08 through 14:47 look at what the court is discussing; not what the government has been directed to do, (provide toothbrushes?), but what part of the government has been directed to do this. And the court seems to agree with this with comments such as; "Well that seems easy if that's all you are asking us to do."
Again, it is clear this court issue is not about the government arguing about providing toothbrushes, but it is about the amendment of a previous court decision.
The court/lawyer conversation continues with legal references to jurisdiction and the applicability of the previous court agreement relative to specific judicial section pronouncements all the way through to 24:16 when it is again the court that introduces the "toothbrushes" aspect. Note the judge's comment: " So what else is it that you want to talk about, toothbrushes and so on, safe and secure, confined . . . "
The government lawyer replies that she would like to talk about the CBP relative to the previous agreement . . . and this is where the whole thing blows up and you get your soundbite about soap and toothbrushes that you have latched onto becomes the centerstage discussion. And this is where the government lawyer seems most flummoxed--because that is not what she was there to argue!
The judges introduced the toothbrush and soap thing and the lawyer was not prepared to answer because that was not the case she was arguing. But, there is your soundbite, so the truth of the video takes a backseat.
Continuing, you will note that to all the 'soap and toothbrushes' and 'safe and sanitary' comments from the bench, the lawyer stumbles to get back to the point and purpose of her appearance before the court; a government argument against an amended previous agreement.
But that is forgotten now, because in the lawyer's stumblings you have your "soap and toothbrushes" club.
Watch the full video Don, then come back and show me where I am wrong.
Moving on . . . you are half right on your next point. It is an unfortunate situation, but it is not an unforeseen one. Pres. Trump has been declaring this situation a crisis for quite a while before this current court video hit the scene.
We both know how the Democrats and Congress reacted to his declaration of an emergency. If this referenced court video is your only support for the contention that Trump's government did not see soap and toothbrushes as a basic human Right then I would be anxious to hear your justification for Congress' inactivity.
You speak of the apparent obviousness that the government should have been prepared for more detentions, but ignore the administration's previous efforts to secure more funding for the issue. Yes, it is true the news bites of those requests were about more funding for "the wall" but those same requests also included more funding for DHS, (Dept. Homeland Security), operations--which included detention centers funding.
Do you really want to make a point of the "caps,"--setting limits on how many may apply each day? If an office can process 100 applications a day do you think it is wrong to cap applicants at 100 per day? How can you justify arguing that point if any number over 100 will not be processed whether there is a cap or not? Are you demanding beyond human efforts, or are you advocating 24 hr. workdays for the processors?
Regarding your references to CBP and DHS personnel, your "I have no doubts..." are a slap to the face for those dedicated to doing their job correctly. Of course, there is no doubt there will be 'bad apples' but your inference is that the dedicated are the exception rather than the rule. But, that is just my perception of your comment, maybe I am wrong and you did not mean that implication.
I will stop here. To address the rest of your comment would be no more than an expansion of my points so far. Perhaps I am wrong to perceive it as such but this issue, as is being addressed, seems very much a "Trump-bashing" issue. You have presented no arguments to contradict my impression.
In a final effort to be clear; I do believe Pres. Trump and Congress own this issue now. Whether seen or not, there is a "The Buck Stops Here" sign on the president's desk. But there is also a direct line from that sign to Congress.
Contrary to the perception of Pres. Trump's attitude, he is not omnificent, he shares both power and responsibility with Congress.
I wish you were correct that "Trump-bashing" was beyond its shelf life, but I see nothing in current conversations to confirm that.
GA"Watch the full video Don, then come back and show me where I am wrong."
Ok.
I have watched the entire proceedings, and transcribed it, and gone through the original orders the judges and DoJ are referring to.
Note: the original link I posted was a 10 minute excerpt from 00:24:07 to 00:34:26 of the full hearing, and was not otherwise edited in any way.
For this comment though, I am using the full video posted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit(1).
I won't go through your comment line by line, nor will I go through the entire video transcript, but some of your observations about significant issues are not correct, and your overall summary is incomplete and inaccurate.
First, it's important to note that the government was not appealing one issue, but several.
[00:00:56]DoJ: There are several issues on appeal before the court today. I am happy to address all of them and of course any of the court's questions with regard to any of the issues.
These issues relate to a 2017 District Court order(2) (and subsequent orders) that found government in breach of the Flores agreement (a Settlement Agreement from 1997 that stipulates the standards to be met when detaining children for the purpose of immigration)(3).
The 2017 District Court order found that the government had breached the Flores agreement in the following ways:
Inadequate food
Inadequate access to clean drinking water
Inadequate hygiene (bathrooms, soap, towels, toothbrushes)
Cold temperatures
Inadequate sleeping conditions
These are quoted directly from the court order. Note the "Inadequate hygiene" and "Inadequate sleeping conditions" which will be important later.
It's also important to note the first issue the DoJ wants to contest:
[00:01:05]DoJ: . . . I want to start by focusing on a few points related to two of the issues. First with regard to the district court's finding that U.S. Customs and Border Protection was in violation of the Flores agreement with regard to conditions in the Rio Grande Valley at Border Patrol stations.
So the government wants to contest the issue of conditions in CBP facilities referred to in the District Court order in the ways outlined above.
Before 00:24:00, there is a series of arguments, questions and clarifications around jurisdiction, how interpretation of existing statutes may (or may not) affect the District Court order, and which parts of the government is being directed to do what, as you noted.
But those arguments, including the reference to "toothbrushes" at 00:06:35, are not the government's main argument. In fact one of the judges wryly observes:
[00:15:11] J. Fletcher: Okay. Now with all of your time expired would you like to begin your argument.
This prompts another round of "pre-argument" questions, after which the judges ask what else the DoJ wants to talk about, and we see the start of the sequence that appears in the link I posted originally:
[00:24:07] J. Berzon: What else would you like to argue about?
[00:24:09] J. Fletcher: Yeah you want to talk about toothbrushes and so on, "safe and secure", "certified", "confined", what do you want to talk about?
At first glance it seems the mention of toothbrushes and these other terms here, is apropos nothing. But that is not the case.
All these terms are references to the District Court order the government is contesting (including the government's defense during that trial) and the Flores agreement itself. Based on his knowledge of the case, the judge is therefore asking which specific things from the District Court order the DoJ lawyer would like to contest.
Again, the DoJ makes it clear it wants to contest issues relating to conditions in CBP facilities, as referenced in the District Court order:
[00:24:17] DoJ: I was planning to address the CBP issues. . . that's the conditions in the CBP facilities.
The judges then ask if the government is going to contest the "safe and sanitary" conditions standard:
[00:24:29] J. Berzon: But you're really going to stand up and tell us that that being able to sleep isn't a question of safe and sanitary conditions?
Again, this seems apropos nothing. But again, based on the judges' knowledge of the case, and subsequent appeals, it is not.
The government argued in the previous trial that because the Flores agreement does not explicitly define a standard for sleeping conditions, and does not explicitly say that soap must be provided, the Plaintiff was applying a different standard. The government argues that, in finding in favor of the Plaintiff, the District Court has subsequently amended the agreement, making the court order invalid.
If there is any doubt that the government denies providing soap, toothbrushes etc. is part of providing a "safe and sanitary" environment, we need only look at the government's original defense, as outlined in the previous District Court order:
"On the specific issue of hygiene products, Defendants [the government] argue that the Agreement does not require them to provide class members with soap, towels, showers, dry clothing, or toothbrushes."
The government continues to make that assertion in the hearing shown in the video. This is where the issue of "safe and sanitary" conditions, and "inadequate sleeping conditions" comes from:
[00:25:01] . . . what the district court looked at was not asking the question . . . "is there a violation of the language of the consent decree [the Flores Agreement] and is this an overall violation of what the parties intended to prohibit in the in the consent decree?" . . . the district court instead looked at it from a different angle. The District Court looked first [at] "was there a violation of CBP's own TEDS standard [National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search]"
So the government is repeating the assertion that the District Court did not apply the standard for detaining children outlined in the Flores agreement ("safe and sanitary"), but instead applied a different standard (the CBP's TEDS standard).
It is this assertion that prompts the judges to point out that although the Flores agreement does not explicitly say there is a requirement to provide adequate sleeping conditions, soap, toothpaste etc. these things obviously fall under the general category of a "safe and sanitary" environment, which the Flores agreement definitely does set.
The government does not agree, though the DoJ lawyer concedes that: "sleep is the more difficult end of what I'm arguing".
And this is the crux of the matter. The government is asserting that these things (including sleep) are not covered under the Flores agreement, and by doing so is effectively saying that soap, toothpaste, adequate sleeping conditions etc. have nothing to do with providing a "safe and sanitary" environment.
In other words, the government does not think the standard of "safe and sanitary" includes a requirement to provide soap, towels, showers etc. That is the point the judges, and everyone else, find so incredulous.
If there is still any doubt, the government then goes on to explain why it holds that position:
[00:26:27] DoJ: . . . safe and sanitary is a singular category in the agreement and it was, one has to assume, left that way and not enumerated by the parties, because either the parties couldn't reach agreement on how to enumerate that, or it was left to the agencies to determine . . .
[00:26:44] J. Fletcher: . . . or it was relatively obvious . . . at least obvious enough so that if you're putting people into a crowded room to sleep on a concrete floor, with an aluminum foil blanket on top of them, that doesn't comply with the agreement . . .
In other words, the government is arguing that because "safe and sanitary" was not explicitly defined in the Flores agreement, it's therefore up to the government to decide what it means, and apparently the government doesn't think it reasonable to believe it means being able to wash and sleep.
So, contrary to your remarks, the government, in its previous defense against the District Court order, and its current argument contesting that order, is arguing that soap, sleep etc are not relevant to a "safe and sanitary" environment (whis was my original assertion). In the exchange from 00:27:00 to 00:34:05 the judges' disbelief at what they are hearing is palpable:
[00:28:20] J. Fletcher: But are you arguing, seriously, that you do not read the agreement as requiring you to do something other than what I've just described: cold all night long, lights on all night, sleep on the concrete, and you get an aluminum foil blanket. Are you saying that's ok under the agreement? . . . I find that inconceivable that the government would say that that is safe and sanitary.
[00:28:43] DoJ: I think what I'm arguing your honor is that I don't believe that the District Court made the finding in the way that your honor just detailed it.
[00:28:49] J. Fletcher: Well everything I just said comes right out of the district court order . . .
After another exchange, Judge Tashima picks up the thread:
[00:30:41] J. Tashima:[i] . . . It's within everybody's common understanding that, you know, if you don't have a toothbrush, if you don't have soap, if you don't have a blanket, it's not safe and sanitary. Wouldn't everybody agree to that? Do you agree with that?
[00:30:57]. . . I think there's fair reason to find that those things maybe part of say . . .
[00:31:05] J. Tashima: not maybe, are a part! Why do you say maybe? You mean there are circumstances where a person doesn't need to have a toothbrush, toothpaste, and soap, for days?
The government continues its assertion in ways that do not relate to the question of whether people need these items, but this sequence of exchanges ends with the government eventually admitting that it's argument is that the Flores agreement is so vague it is unenforceable.
And finally if there is still any shred of doubt remaining about what the government is arguing, the DoJ lawyer comes back later for a rebuttal, and continues to assert the same position:
[00:59:19] DoJ: if truly . . . these enumerated conditions may be part of an "unsanitary" finding, and if the court is saying they're not new requirements, they're not added requirements, and it's not a direct finding that these are obligations, then in fact . . . if the court is simply ordering compliance with the existing term of the agreement in a way that that can be understood . . . I think in that position we would understand there could be no jurisdiction for this court to hear the question
In other words, if this appeals court finds that having to provide soap, adequate sleep arrangements, toothpaste etc. as outlined by the previous District Court order, does not apply a new standard, but the appeals court finds it merely orders compliance with the Flores agreement under the "Safe and sanitary" standard, then there is no case for the appeals court to adjudicate, because the government has no case to appeal. The definition of "safe and sanitary" is the government's main issue for appeal in this hearing.
In light of the fact the previous District Court order literally says the government is arguing that soap etc. has nothing to do with a "safe and sanitary" environment, and in light of the explanations and observations here that show the government is still making that assertion, do you still contend the government is not arguing that point?
The comment that prompted you to launch into your defense of the poor, much-maligned, and bashed administration, was:
"It's not just merely perception. When the government argues that soap, warmth, and a place to sleep have nothing to do with providing a safe and sanitary environment, that is a political stance, and it impacts the reality of circumstances on the ground. How could it not? . . So this situation is just as much about the government's willingness (or lack of) to accept its moral and legal responsibilities towards people in its custody, as it is the government's ability to do that."
What I have seen in this video, and read in the previous District Court order, supports the accuracy of that comment, and I stand by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: your other points.
At the time Trump took office, apprehensions for people crossing the border illegally were at their lowest for decades; the number of people trying to cross illegally was the lowest it's been in years; the number of people getting caught crossing illegally was higher than it's been for years; and the likelihood of getting caught crossing illegally was higher than it's been for years. All this according to the government's own figures. I did an entire post about it with all the relevant stats and sources. There was no "crisis" in illegal border crossings.
In terms of the humanitarian issues, yes conditions in these detention camps were very poor, and both current and previous administrations have a responsibility for that. But my main criticism of the current administration is that the likely effect of massively increasing the number of people held, without massively increasing the number of people you are able to hold, is obvious, but was not acted on. Sure, previous budgets included requests for funding additional capacity (funds which were received) but the vast majority of funds requested were for the The Wall, which would do nothing to alleviate the humanitarian related to detaining thousands more people than the system can cope with.
So we can argue about what the Democrats did or didn't do, but the fact is, the "zero tolerance" approach that massively increased the number of people being held, combined with being more interested in getting funds for a wall, than alleviating the humanitarian problems its policy would cause, was the fault of the current administration.
The Wall and Zero Tolerance were not sensible, well-planned solutions. They were red meat for the base. So the point about the caps for asylum seekers was not to take issue with the caps themselves, but to highlight the rushed, unplanned, uncoordinated manner in which policies were being developed and implemented in a race to please people like wilderness. That unpredeness was alluded to by the OIG:
"The OIG’s observations indicate that DHS was not fully prepared to implement the Zero Tolerance Policy, or to deal with certain effects of the policy following implementation"(4)
The "effects" of chasing policies that pander to the base are now being seen. The "zero tolerance" approach has been an absolute failure. Illegal border crossings are up not down. The number of asylum seekers in the system has increased not decreased. The only benefit of that policy was political. It was implemented to make the base happy.
You criticised the Democrats for the Green New Deal on the grounds it was red meat for the liberal base, even though it was essentially just a summary of wishful thinking. Yet you are less critical of the current administration for actually implementing policies for no other reason than they will play well with its base, and which are demonstrably failing.
In relation to CBP officers, I was suggesting that I believe the majority are hard-working (perhaps use of a double negative did not make that as clear as it could have been).
The point is, although it's likely most are hard-working professionals, we shouldn't be naive about the failings of ordinary human beings, even (and especially) those granted significant power over the lives of vulnerable people.
This point is a response to your comment that "I do not accept that our personnel at these detention centers are uncaring cold-hearted monsters that are gleefully forcing kids to sleep on a concrete floor".
The examples of various Facebook groups I referenced indicates that certainly could be the case in some instances, and it's wise to be mindful of that (moreseo with the current president sending out racist Tweets that only serve to bolster anyone harboring hateful views).
I think you know my opinion of your Trump bashing riposte, which to me implies you think they have no validity. When you consider all the facts, if you still think these criticisms have no validity, then I fear you have transitioned from being a (relatively) balanced, right-leaning centrist, to a Trump apologist.
You are right, the buck stops with the president. The policies he has implemented are failing. Not because of the Democrats, or Democratic women in Congress with brown skin, or liberals, or gays, or the US women's soccer team, or CNN or Muslims, or any of the other people the current administration wants portray as the villain.
They are failing because they are bad policies. This is what happens when you do the equivalent of letting loud-mouthed "bob" with all his "solutions" for how to solve immigration, actually run the country. None of the warnings were heeded, and now we are starting to see the result: the immigration issue is worse than it was, and more people are suffering. The Zero Tolerance approach, and the misguided focus on a wall, have been abject failures, and the responsibility for those sits squarely with the current administration.
(1) Video of Appeal Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2GkDz9yEJA
(2) 2017 District Court Order being Contested
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte … -ORDER.pdf
(3) The Flores Agreement
https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/f … ment_1.pdf
(4) Report on Zero Tolerance by the Office of the Inspector General
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/f … -Sep18.pdfThat was a lot of work Don. I don't think I am up to the task of matching it.
I knew that even addressing that video was going to be problematic, but you haven't convinced me that my original point was wrong.
"The government, (bless her soul), was arguing the validity of a previous agreement that had subsequently been amended."
First, it seems a determination must be made. The DOJ lawyer said several "issues' but the judge said only "one case."
"Welcome to the 9th circuit, ahh we only have one case on the calendar this afternoon; Flores vs. Barr . . ."
Watching the further exchange, it seems it might be fair to surmise that the case the judge spoke of was the DOJ's appeal that the original agreement--the 2017 District Court order you referred to--was now invalid due to "erroneous legal reasoning," (which ended up being that the dept. the order directed, (INS), no longer existed and that such reasoning of the order equally applied to its replacement dept., (ORR), which did not have the same charter as the INS modified the original agreement.
I think the "several issues" the DOJ lawyer referenced were her arguments supporting the DOJ's appeal effort.
But that is just my layman's interpretation.
However, a subsequent exchange does seem to support that when the center judge summarizes the DOJ's problem, (grounds for the appeal):
Starting at 13:48 the center judge says: " So is your problem then, on this particular point what part of the government has been directed to do this, rather than what it has been directed to do?"
DOJ's lawyer responds, "Correct your honor."
Then the next "issue" is an interpretation of a section of the order dealing with detainee parole criteria.
And then they get into the thicket of "safe and sanitary" and toothbrushes, etc. all coming from the judges. The DOJ lawyer continues to stumble as she tries to associate those issues with her appeal contention that the District Court order amended the original Consent Decree.
The government's appeal wasn't about toothbrushes, (regardless of how they were brought into the Court's discussion, or whether they were a part of the District Court's order), it was about a court order amending or changing a previous Consent Decree.
Then, when the lawyer for the "other side" came to the podium, his discussion was also about the issue of whether the District Court order amended the original Consent Decree, (of course he took the position it did not). Once more it was the judges that brought up toothbrushes et al. And when this lawyer answered their questions he returned to the government's appeal rational about whether there was an amendment of the original decree.
Then, . . . along came John . . . when the DOJ lawyer came back for her rebuttal, she also returned to the point of jurisdiction - relative to this court deciding the "amending" issue.
Throughout, it was the judges that brought "safe and sanitary" and toothbrushes into the conversation. Not the DOJ's lawyer nor her opposing lawyer.
There is one final question. You declare that Pres. Trump's policies are only put in place to pander to his base, not really trying to fix the problem. Would the same judgment fall on Pres. Obama's detention policies when his stated purpose, (as explained in a previous quote from one of his guys, (I think the quote is somewhere a page or two back in this thread), was to deter future illegal immigrants by letting them know they would be detained and not just handed a "permisimo"?
GAOkay, I’ve only watched a total of about 20 minutes of the proceedings, and haven’t put the research into this that it seems both Don W and GA have. However, I have a simple question that seems to be “common” sense.
“Starting at 13:48 the center judge says: " So is your problem then, on this particular point what part of the government has been directed to do this, rather than what it has been directed to do?"
--DOJ's lawyer responds, "Correct your honor."
So why would the government context this point if it doesn’t have some sort of issue with what it has been directed to do?
Even if the appeal is based entirely on procedural matters, why exactly does the government have a problem with “a court order amending or changing a previous Consent Decree.” Does the government think it’s simply impossible to abide by the decree without the INS.
There has to be an underlying motive here. I mean, a criminal defense attorney doesn’t attempt to get a verdict thrown out just because there were procedural issues, otherwise the attorney would context thost matters even if his client were found innocent. It’s left to the DA to context any such matters when a client is innocent.
What is the underlying reason for the government taking so much time and effort here? I think that’s the real question. If it’s not toothbrushes and soap, it has to be something. I don’t know.I think it has to do with the government, (ICE, CBP), being found in violation of the District Court order.
I am not anxious to go back and dissect that video again, but my recall is that the government claims it would not be in violation by the terms of the orginal Consent Decree, but details of the District Court order, (which they aren't contesting they may be in violation of), modified or amended the original agreement.
I don't recall it being mentioned, but I suspect there might be some concerns for civil liability litigation behind the appeal motives.
GAThat does make sense as to why we have a case here. And I see you pretty much stated that already:
""The DOJ lawyer continues to stumble as she tries to associate those issues with her appeal contention that the District Court order amended the original Consent Decree."
I was lost in the details. So, your basic point is that even if the court is stating the government is in violation of the District Court Order, there are other facets of that order besides toothbrushes, soap, and sleep with that order. And, even if the government is admitting it didn't provide those necessitates, it isn't arguing that these should not be considered as part of "safe and sanitary" moving forward?
Maybe I'll dissect the video if the time gods permit, but I expect some other atrocity will be front and center soon, lol.That's a fair summary hard sun. Good luck with the video. I am hoping I am done with it.
However, I do have some food for thought for you if you do get into the video, but it is just that--a thought, I don't know if it has any merit:
In each of at least three segments of the video, it was the judges that introduced the toothbrushes et al into the conversation - unprompted by anything the DOJ lawyer said.
These segments were also where the DOJ lawyer seemed to stumble the most and look so bad. (because she wasn't prepared because those issues weren't part of her appeal argument?)
The lawyer for the "other side" also did not introduce the toothbrushes thing as part of his defense against the appeal but responded to it when the judges again introduced it.
The judges spoke of the toothbrushes' issue in the same context and terminology that was being promoted in the media's presentations of the issue.
Considering the Conservative's frequent claims against the 9th Circuit Court, could the above indicate the judges brought a bias to the bench in this case?
With the caveat that this thought is based solely on the video because I don't know what was in the government's initial court brief, I can see room for the idea that the judges did allow bias into their considerations.
GAWithout knowing the initial court brief, it is difficult to say with extremely high confidence in this case. However, based on how quickly and decisively decisions have come down from that court, during this administration, I now think it's clear that there is a liberal bias in the 9th Circuit Court. I also think that the judges just come off wrong in the proceedings of this case. Of course, that's just my perception.
Considering the big picture, I think we've had Presidents turning our court system into a political fighting ground for far too long, and it's getting more blatant on each side. Our institutions are only as good as the people who run them, and our collective morality has taken a tumble.
This came way before Trump, and I see him as just another symptom. Not that this is anything new, but...Trump especially invites hyper-partisan ship within every branch of our government. When he attacks our court system as a whole, or certain districts, I think judges take note. This shouldn't influence their decisions, however, being human, I fear it does. I will say again though that this bias existed before Trump, and he called it out, however he only serves to make it worse, while shoring up the courts he can with judges on his "side." The liberals make it worse by demonizing everything Trump says and does. It's a systemic issue that, unfortunately, may take some sort of horrible and likely unforeseen tragedy to begin to reverse. Or, hopefully we can elect more moderates all across the won't serve to further divide. The blame goes round n round.
To be honest, I'm not sure why this issue is in dispute. The District Court order cleary says what the government is arguing:
"On the specific issue of hygiene products, Defendants [the government] argue that the Agreement does not require them to provide class members with soap, towels, showers, dry clothing, or toothbrushes."
And we know this was also part of the government's brief because one of the judges says so:
[00:25:58] J. Berzon: You can't be safe and sanitary, or safe as a human being, if you can't sleep, and then you said in your brief it doesn't say anything about sleeping so therefore there's nothing in here about being able to sleep.
I'm not sure how much clearer it can be.
Also, we know the "case" refers to the 2017 District Court order finding the government in violation. The DoJ lawyers says soe several times:
"First with regard to the district court's finding that U.S. Customs and Border Protection was in violation of the Flores set on an agreement with regard to conditions in the Rio Grande Valley at Border Patrol stations"
That is the 2017 District Court order which appointed a Special Monitor to ensure the government complied with the flores agreement. That injunction is what's known as an "interlocutory" order. Such orders are not appealable. So the only way the government could challenge it is to get the court to agree that it changed the agreement in question (the Flores settlement). The only way it could suggest that is by arguing that the order applied a different standard. That is why the government was arguing that the provision of toothbrushes etc is not part of "safe and sanitary".
Yes, there were some other arguments and clarifications around jurisdiction etc, but the government's main argument was that the original court order altered the flores agreement by applying a different standard. You really need to read the original District Court order to understand this.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … nforce.pdfThis doesn't read as the best argument for the conditions of the centers. But, this seems to indicate that the government is not arguing they should not be required to provide soap, toothbrushes, etc:
"Defendants argue that they have shown as a matter of policy and practice that they provide class members at CBP facilities with soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, and access to showers “to the greatest extent possible.”The government was arguing that the Flores agreement does not require it to provide toothbrushes as part of a "safe and sanitary" environment.
So it's the legal principle at stake, i.e. whether the government provides those things out of the goodness of its heart, in which case providing them to "the greatest extent possible" goes beyond its legal obligation. Or whether it is legally compelled to provide these items by the terms of the agreement.
If you continue reading the passage I quoted, you'll see that illustrated:
"On the specific issue of hygiene products, Defendants argue that the Agreement does not require them to provide class members with soap, towels, showers, dry clothing, or toothbrushes. According to Defendants, “If Plaintiffs wish to . . . assert that certain hygiene items or clothing items must be provided, they must do so in a new lawsuit.”
Translation: if the plaintiff wants to sue the government for failing to provide specific hygiene items like toothbrushes to everyone, it can, but not as a breach of the Flores agreement because the Flores agreement does not require us to provide those items.
Hope that makes sense.
In short, the government is rejecting the idea that toothbrushes fall within the category of the "safe and sanitary" standard laid out in the Flores agreement, to most people's disbelief.Yes. The government is rejecting that idea because it doesn't want to lose the lawsuit and thinks these things are not required specifically by the Flores agreement.
At the same time, the government is stating it is providing these things to "the best of its ability." Why would it state this, if it didn't think it SHOULD provide soap, etc?
Even your translation fails to make the case that the government is specifically arguing that, moving forward, those things should not be provided.
In your words: " the government is rejecting the idea that toothbrushes fall within the category of the "safe and sanitary" standard laid out in the Flores agreement" ----Where does this state the government is arguing it should not have to provide these things? The government is stating exactly what you say, in reference to the Flores agreement, nothing more and nothing less.You seem to be missing the point, which is not about whether the government believes it "SHOULD" provide those hygiene items, but about the government's legal liability for providing them, or more accurately not providing them.
The Flores agreement is a legally binding contract. If those hygiene items are deemed necessary to a "safe and sanitary" environment, then the government is legally obligated to provide them. More importantly for the government, it means if it does not provide them, it can be sued for breach of contract, which is exactly what the plaintiff is doing in this case.
On the other hand if soap etc. is not deemed essential to providing a "safe and sanitary" environment, then the government is not legally obligated to provide them. Sure it might choose to provide them at its own discretion, but the crucial point is that it cannot be sued for breach of contract if it does not. In other words, it has no legal liability.
So the plaintiff is saying the government is legally obliged to provide soap etc. because that's part of a safe and sanitary environment, which is required under the legally binding Flores agreement; the government hasn't provided those things; therefore it is in breach of contract.
The government knows it can't defend the case by disputing the facts. There is overwhelming evidence that it has not provided those items. Instead it claim the Flores agreement does not require it to provide them and therefore can't be sued for not doing so. But for mitigation makes it know it does provide those items to the best of its ability.
This is the legal equivalent of claiming night is day and day is night. We know the Flores agreement requires the provision of a "safe and sanitary" environment. Arguing that toothbrushes, soap etc. are not required under the Flores agreement is the equivalent of saying that soap etc. are not needed for a "safe and sanitary" environment.
In other words, the government is asserting something that no one with common sense would accept, in an effort to avoid legal liability for the provision of certain hygiene items.
That is why the District Court dismissed this part of the government's defense and found in favor of the plaintiff, why the appellate court judges were so incredulous, and why every legal commentator I have read has expressed their disbelief at the argument the government used."You seem to be missing the point, which is not about whether the government believes it "SHOULD" provide those hygiene items, but about the government's legal liability for providing them, or more accurately not providing them. "
No, I'm not missing the point, and I think I stated exactly what you just did, in different words: "Yes. The government is rejecting that idea because it doesn't want to lose the lawsuit and thinks these things are not required specifically by the Flores agreement. "---You're not understanding my position.
The biggest moral outrage seems to be resulting from the fact that people are assuming the government is stating it SHOULD NOT provide these things in the future. Personally, it doesn't bother me, or surprise me, that the government would make an effort to avoid legal liability.
The only thing that would bother me is that if the government states they should not have to do these things moving forward. I also think this is how most people are taking this story...that the government is arguing it should not provide these things. As you stated, that's not what the government is arguing.
"The biggest moral outrage seems to be resulting from the fact that people are assuming the government is stating it SHOULD NOT provide these things in the future."
I can't speak to anyone else's "moral outrage", but I can tell you that is not what I am assuming, and not what the appellate judges, or the District Court judge said. That is why I'm suggesting you are missing the point, or at least the point I have been making.
That point is: in order to avoid legal liability for providing certain hygiene products, the government is claiming soap etc. has nothing to do with providing a safe and sanitary environment. That, on its own, is absurd.
It does not need an assumption that the government will not provide those things in future. The fact that the government is willing to make an argument that flies in the face of all common sense to avoid being held legally accountable for providing soap is ridiculous enough.
But there is a wider issue that relates to the assumption you mention, which may be the source of some other people's outrage. The idea that the government wants to avoid legal accountability for basic hygiene products, so it can fail to provide them with impunity.
I think that's part of a bigger issue related to the mistrust many people have of the current administration, where they believe the current administration would have no qualms deliberately allowing conditions in detention centres to deteriorate, in order to deter asylum seekers.
To be clear, that's not the issue I have with the government's argument. I just think it's ridiculous to suggest soap is not part of a sanitary environment as a way of getting out of being held legally accountable for providing it, but I certainly understand why others would have the above concerns, and be making the assumption you referred to.
All you have listed should be put on a flyer and dropped in all the problem countries as an open invitation to come on down... Your problem solving seems one-sided. only respecting the wishes of Americans that see your point of view. I think there is such a dived though process in regards to immigration in our country. It seems we have some that hope to open the borders to any and all. And some that just hope to have some decent fair laws that not only dictate how many can claim asylum but a fairer way to choose who can become citizens. We seem to be forgetting we have hundreds of thousands of people that apply to come in legally without the claim of need for asylum just to become citizens. Do we ignore all of them that have been on back burns for years due to this overflow of asylum seekers that are being put at the front of the line? In the past 10 years, the number of an asylum seeker has gone up 2000%.
https://time.com/longform/asylum-seekers-border/
As for my point of view.
1. We need to deter the caravans from coming to our borders.
2. Handle our backlog, treat the people we have in these facilities humanly.
3. Let asylum seeker apply for their own countries or if in bodily danger they need to seek asylum in the first country they cross into that would be considered a place of safety. If they are seeking asylum from Mexico or Canada they need to present themselves at a legal border crossing.
4. Democrats sit on the fence, Republicans use common sense..The opening comment lists a number of things GA believes are "givens" (and presumably should be considered as part of any solution)
I am suggesting the things I have listed are also a given.
Are you suggesting they are not?
If so, does that mean you think it morally right to separate families to punish asylum seekers and deter others?
Do you think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government? And by basic needs I mean sufficient food, water, soap, a place to wash, a place to lie down or sit. You know basic human needs.
Do you believe the hope these people have for a better life can be defeated by a fence, barbed wire, guards etc. History tells us that physical punishments cannot defeat human hope. So I think it's a given that any solution would have to include more than physical deterrents and punishments. Why do you disagree?
You don't think it's a given that we should be ethical in our dealings with asylum seekers?
You don't think it's a given that people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights? I can assure you they do.
So far two people have balked at the things I have listed as given, but neither have actually explained why they are not. I hope you'll be different."Do you think it morally wrong to provide for the basic human needs of people being detained by the government? And by basic needs I mean sufficient food, water, soap, a place to wash, a place to lie down or sit. You know basic human needs."
We are already doing all of what you mentioned. And it should get better with the new funds that will be spent.
"Do you believe the hope these people have for a better life can be defeated by a fence, barbed wire, guards etc. History tells us that physical punishments cannot defeat human hope. So I think it's a given that any solution would have to include more than physical deterrents and punishments. Why do you disagree?"
I do not disagree - I listed methods of deterrents. Please read #3.
I as a citizen do not want immigration laws that enable this overcrowding to happen. I gave my solutions to decrease overcrowding at the border. I am in no way condoning we be the saviors of the world... Many American citizens have hopes, maybe time to help some of our own less fortunate.
"You don't think it's a given that we should be ethical in our dealings with asylum seekers?" I don't think we should be having this problem with overcrowding. I don't think we owe them anything our laws don't cover.
"You don't think it's a given that people within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution do not have constitutional rights? I can assure you they do."
I realize they have certain rights and I am not going to argue should they or shouldn't they."We are already doing all of what you mentioned. And it should get better with the new funds that will be spent."
I didn't asking whether we are doing those things. I asked if it is a given that we should do those things. Based on your response, I assume you think it is a given. I agree.
In terms of whether basic human needs are being met, the Office of the Inspector General begs to differ with your assessment:
"For example, although TEDS standards require CBP to make a reasonable effort to provide a shower for adults after 72 hours,!? most single adults had not had a shower in CBP custody despite several being held for as long as a month"
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1
I strongly recommend you read the report.
"I do not disagree - I listed methods of deterrents."
So you did. Seems we agree then. It's a given that any solution would have to include more than physical deterrents and punishments.
"I don't think we should be having this problem with overcrowding. I don't think we owe them anything our laws don't cover."
I don't know if that's a yes or no. I think our response must always be tempered with ethical considerations. Why don't fill the Rio Grande with land mines? Or shoot to kill everyone who crosses the border illegally including families? Because obviously we consider the ethical implications of that. The fact it's so obvious is exactly what makes it a given.
"I realize they have certain rights and I am not going to argue should they or shouldn't they."
Yes, regardless of what people think about it, it's a fact that anyone within the jurisdiction of the Constitution has constitutional rights. That is a given.
Each and every question you have accused our government of not compiling with they are compiling with to the very best of their ability. They are daily dealing with the overcrowding crisis. With the new bill passed more funds will help them with the humanitarian crisis. To bad the Congress did not help sooner...
I am sure you have read the reports from the visitors that were allowed tours of facilities on Friday. If not you may want to do some research on their findings.
Yes, they found overcrowding that has resulted in problems. However, one can see all the hysteria was brought about by ill-informed people that were reporting without real knowledge of what is actually the truth.
This thread is repetitious and getting downright ridiculous.
Time to realize, the government is doing its best, and no one forced migrants to make the trip. All this rhetoric serves as an open invitation for more to consider making the trip."no one forced migrants to make the trip."
Well, this depends on if they are fleeing bloodshed and violence towards their families. And it's "complying," not "compiling."
To repeat my sentiment, this thread is repetitious and getting downright ridiculous.
Time to realize, the government is doing its best, and no one forced migrants to make the trip. All this rhetoric serves as an open invitation for more to consider making the trip.
"Well, this depends on if they are fleeing bloodshed and violence towards their families."
Do you really feel that is true of the overwhelming number of migrants that are making the trip are due to fleeing bloodshed? Please have a look at how many asylum seekers are turned away due to our courts not buying into your sentiment. At any rate, I hope we start enforcing our immigration laws and cut the number of asylum seekers we accept until we take care of our backlogs.
"The truth is, about 20 to 30 percent of asylum requests have been granted annually since 2009, but experts said that does not mean that the remaining 70 to 80 percent of cases are invalid. There are many reasons why an asylum case might otherwise be dismissed or closed."
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statem … out-merit/
"Nearly 20,500 individuals in FY 2016. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum, which is about 28 percent out of the 73,081 cases."
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa … m-process/
I have long thought a crocodile filled moat would solve most of this problem with these invaders.
James I am not surprised you would entertain that thought.
GAYes, James gave a true Xtian response to a serious humanitarian problem, Gus. Jesus would have certainly approved....
It is a problem that will only continue to escalate, and the reasons are simple, obvious, and ignored by the politicians and media.
We now have tens of thousands a month coming from countries as far away as Africa, through the border with Mexico. That is a pretty daunting trek for anyone who does not have the legal documentation to do so... yet the numbers are increasing as the weeks go by.
This is because the US of A offers those who reach the border:
Housing
Food
Money
Opportunity for a better life
They are being told they will get a place to live, free food and income for life. True or not, they are being told this by various sources working on behalf of non-profits and U.N. backed agencies whose efforts and intent is to increase immigrant traffic to America.
If you were living in a country like Somalia or Venezuela today, its not hard to imagine why you would risk everything to make the journey as well, if you could.
So, I expect this to become a matter of not thousands coming a week, but hundreds of thousands a week, it will be like a faucet that has a broken valve and cannot be turned off.
Until the economy collapses, or ruin and violence become the norm here in America, it will never stop... so long as there are non-profits and government agencies giving them places to live, free food and income, the numbers will continue to grow.Out of all the Hispanic immigrants I have met, every single one had a job. None of them get anything for free.
The real problem is businesses that hire them for cheap labor and a government that won't fine those businesses for breaking the law.
Cut off the jobs for illegals and you cut off their main reason for coming here.African Migrants Are Becoming A New Face Of The U.S. Border Crisis
Filipe and Mireille took their four young children and fled violent militias and civil unrest in the Democratic Republic of Congo nearly five months ago.
They flew to Ecuador, then traveled on foot across Central America to reach the U.S.-Mexico border, where they waited for weeks in a long line of asylum-seekers before being allowed to cross and make the last leg of their journey.
Finally, they reached their destination: a makeshift emergency shelter in Portland, Maine — a converted minor-league sports arena now filled with cots. Filipe describes it as "paradise."
"I was thinking ... what could I wish for in life? And this is what I wish for," Felipe says through a translator. He and his wife did not want to give their last names to protect their privacy.
The crisis on the southern border has been driven by a surge of migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Now there's a new face of the crisis: Thousands of African migrants have crossed the border in recent weeks, many to seek asylum.
Like the families from Central America, they are traveling great distances after seeing thousands gain entry to the United States in recent months.
"When conditions at home are desperate, and the Europe option doesn't look good, the high-priced, long-distance option to come to the U.S. might be worth it."
First, many of these migrants fly to South America. And when they get there, they find well-traveled roads to follow north, Capps says.
"That journey through Central America and Mexico has been facilitated by these large migrant caravans, by more sophisticated and faster smuggling routes, and it's an easier journey from Guatemala onward than it has been in the past," he says.
Capps says the U.S. can expect more migrants from all over the world to seek asylum in the United States unless Mexico does more to stop them.
Many of the African asylum-seekers have then made their way to cities like Portland, Maine, with large, established African immigrant communities. And just as the surge of migrants is overwhelming border agents and the nation's immigration court system, it is also taxing social services from Portland to San Antonio, Texas.
Large communities of mainly Somali and Sudanese refugees have formed in Maine's largest cities, Portland and Lewiston.
The rate of poverty is rising among African immigrants in the Portland metro region. That’s according to a report from the Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University, which details changing demographics in the African community.
According to the report, Africans in the Portland metro area come from 28 countries, with the largest numbers coming from Somalia, Egypt and Sierra Leone.
It also shows that more than half the African immigrants in the region live in poverty – and that two-thirds of the children in these communities are living in poverty.
Just as the surge of migrants is overwhelming border agents and the nation's immigration court system, it is also taxing social services from Portland to San Antonio, Texas.
In that border city, migrants pile into white vans once they cross the border. The shuttles drop the families off on a busy street corner downtown, outside the city's migrant service center. When migrants started arriving from places like the Congos and Angola, it didn't take city workers long to figure out they would need translators.
"So we're down here working with the city right now at the relief center, helping purchase bus tickets, and we brought down a lot of staff who speak Swahili or French to help with language needs," says Peter Stranges, who works for Catholic Charities in San Antonio.
---- and the article goes on but I'll END here----
The point is, thousands cross the border daily, and most of those coming do not have jobs, and do not have places to live, they are relying on the generosity of non-profits and the local governments that they are sent to and the donations and generosity of Americans who help out.
It is a falsehood, a fabrication, or outright lie, to say the people who come here all have jobs, almost none of them do when they arrive at the border."Almost none of them do when they arrive at the border."
For crying out loud, of course not. They get the jobs when they cross the border.
Odd that conservatives want to stop illegal immigration, but they don't want to cut off the jobs that attract illegal immigrants.
"None of them get anything for free."
You don't know of a single illegal that receives food stamps? Housing assistance? Medical care? Not a single one educates their children in public schools? Not one has used the services of an interpreter in court somewhere? None have gone through a soup line in a church somewhere? No one got a free turkey on Thanksgiving or Christmas?
You either live in a fantasy world where closed eyes are the norm or all your friends wear wings.
But you are absolutely correct; cut off the jobs and a great deal of the flow will end. So why don't we do that? We've had the opportunity, and the incentive, for decades - why isn't it done? Because, just maybe, it could affect the votes of the politicians, or even their pocketbooks? Just maybe?No, not a one. Do you? How do you know what they get and how they get it? Do you stop them on the street and demand answers?
"You either live in a fantasy world where closed eyes are the norm or all your friends wear wings."
Now, don't be silly. I am much more in touch with real life than you any day of the week.
I have done a lot of volunteer work for 7 years at an agency that provides so-called "free" help for people that truly need it. I haven't seen an illegal there yet. Do any illegals ever get something for free? Sure, but doesn't just about everyone?
ALL of the illegals I have met have jobs. You might try opening your eyes yourself and stop one siding everything."How do you know what they get and how they get it?"
I sit in the courtroom and watch as interpreters are required. I sit in the welfare office and watch. I visit schools and watch, then look at the budget and the expense for ESL teachers.
While you sit back and pretend it doesn't happen because you turn your head when it might be seen. Or pretend that hordes of people speaking no English surely have permission to be here.
Yes, most have jobs. At least one per family and sometimes more. But that wasn't the topic, was it - it was whether illegals are getting aid to supplement a salary that will not support a family or, often enough, even an individual. How do YOU think a family of 5 or 6 is surviving on less than minimum wage if not with freebies? How do YOU think the schools get the funds to operate when illegals do not pay anywhere near enough in taxes to educate even one of their children in the public system?
Hint: it's called "welfare", or maybe "freebies" or even "charity". But whatever it's called, the illegals (as a group) are not providing for their own needs, not by any stretch of the imagination.Your reply is nearly all opinions. Let's try facts. What illegals don't receive:
- Medicare
- Obamacare
- Social Security
- Food stamps
- Unemployment compensation
- Medicaid (except for emergencies)
I grant that illegal children can attend school.
Otherwise, what government programs do they get for free?This too is essentially a falsehood, there are many state and a few federal programs that provide illegal immigrants with assistance.
Twenty-six states make immigrants eligible for state-funded benefit programs. Most of these states either offer assistance to families or provide access to healthcare to otherwise uninsured immigrants. Examples of these programs are New York’s Safety Net Assistance, California’s CalFresh Food Assistance Program, and California’s Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI).
29 percent of noncitizen adults use SNAP (AKA Food Stamps) this is a federally funded program.
In accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in Plyer v. Doe, all immigrant children, regardless of status, have access to a public education and are eligible to attend public schools for grades K-12. Undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Head Start program as it is not considered a federal public benefit program – any child who is otherwise eligible, regardless of their or their parents’ immigration status, may enroll in Head Start or Early Head Start.
All of this information is easy to find and verify. Support for immigrants, illegal or however you want to label them, is supported with different named programs perhaps... but it equates to the same as what American citizens are entitled to from welfare, food stamps, etc.You thoroughly misunderstand my post. I am talking about illegal immigrants. You are talking about "noncitizens", including SNAP.
Please address my list and explain which ones serve illegal immigrants for free.
And I already said that illegals can go to school.And as I stated, they receive similar benefits, from state and federal programs not specifically labeled Welfare, Food Stamps, etc.
Illegal immigrants receive the benefits of government services (like fire and police protection) and their children receive public education.
Additionally, children of illegal immigrants that are born in the United States are eligible for the full spread of government welfare benefits, including Social Security and Medicare this includes the benefits of housing, SNAP, etc. in many cases, from which the parents benefit.
Immigrant households with children use welfare programs at consistently higher rates than citizens, according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a nonpartisan Washington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal immigration in the U.S.
The children in essence are used to make the parents 'legal' and 'welfare recipients'.
1. $116 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegals for Welfare & related social services.
Verify at: https://www.fairus.org/issue/publicatio … -taxpayers
2. $2 Billion a year is spent on food assistance programs such as SNAP, WIC, and free school lunches for illegals.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion a year is spent on Medicaid for illegals.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children brought here illegally.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegals.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … dt.01.html
6. $11 Billion a year is spent to incarcerate illegals.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … dt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegals.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … dt.01.html
8. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages directly linked to illegals.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … dt.01.html
All in all, the cost of illegal immigration is probably close to half trillion dollars a year of overall expenses and lost tax revenues, its up to each individual citizen to decide if that is a fair burden to saddle our nation with, and how they feel about it over all.Still not on point. The point was free government services for illegal aliens including the list I posted.
The point is not about the alleged economic impact from an anti-immigration organization like CIS. CIS is making up stuff (like usual).
SNAP is illegal for illegal immigrants. So is Medicaid. Just look it up.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibili … zen-policy
Likewise, SS is not available for illegals.
https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot … tizens.htm
Also, prison is not a "free service" for illegals.Tax funds going to illegal immigrants are still tax funds, whether it is a State run program that does a run-around the federal law, or different federal program. Whether it is actually funded by Welfare is irrelevant.
This is a snippet from the Washington Examiner, which had links to sites supporting its data:
llegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year, far more than the average "native" American household, at $4,431, according to a new report on the cost of immigration released Monday.
The Center for Immigration Studies, in an analysis of federal cost figures, found that all immigrant-headed households — legal and illegal — receive an average of $6,241 in welfare, 41 percent more than native households. As with Americans receiving benefits such as food stamps and cash, much of the welfare to immigrants supplements their low wage jobs.
The total cost is over $103 billion in welfare benefits to households headed by immigrants. A majority, 51 percent, of immigrant households receive some type of welfare compared to 30 percent of native households, said the analysis of Census data.
We live in a world where you get to choose your 'facts' and your 'reality'.
Some people think illegal immigrants pay taxes, don't get benefits, and are unfairly preyed upon by Americans.
Others think they are drug smuggling, child slave trafficking, freeloading moochers.
I see some truth in both positions, and think those arguing either extreme just make matters worse.
So long as our nation is rich enough to afford illegals more benefits (states like CA and NY especially) for doing nothing but showing up, more than they could hope to make in the countries they were born in... so long as Americans are paying good money for illegal drugs... so long as their are filthy rich individuals that prey on children... there will be a growing flow of illegals into the country for all these reasons.
When our economy slides into a recession and government seriously cracks down on the trafficking of drugs and slaves coming across the border, the numbers will dwindle.
I deal with facts, I don't try to pretend they don't get benefits, and I don't try to pretend that all those coming here are good hardworking people just looking for a break... its a mixed bag, I know better than most who have never had boots on the ground dealing with the matter."You inferred from what I typed that I 'suggested' that. You read into the words what you wanted, that is not the same as fact."
There's an easy way to clear this up Ken. Just tell us. Do you believe the majority of asylum seekers are coming to the US to simply take advantage of the country's generosity with no desire or intention to give anything in return?
That is not what I typed, that is not what is there... that you believe that is what is typed, or that you want to project it on to me, is far more telling about you.
Again, very simple way to clear it up Ken. Do you believe that unless the acceptance of asylum seekers stops, the economy will collapse and fear and violence will "become the norm here in America"?"Do you believe that unless the acceptance of asylum seekers stops, the economy will collapse and fear and violence will "become the norm here in America"?"
Given the rate of increase of "asylum seekers" and the cost of trying to support millions of unskilled people, yes. The economy will collapse, we will become a nation of poverty ridden people and violence will rise as a result of that poverty.
We can afford a few thousand "asylum seekers" (whether truly seeking asylum or just a better economic situation); we cannot support hundreds of thousands of additional people every year that cannot support themselves.Thanks for a straight answer to a straight question. I'll wait to see if Ken follows suite before addressing it.
They aren't going to cause an economic collapse, but an economic collapse would greatly curtail the flow of immigrants to our country.
There is a growing BUSINESS that traffics migrants from all over the world, to places like America.
https://www.international.gc.ca/crime/h … x?lang=eng
https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking
When the economic incentives are gone, the interest to come here will diminish. And those that currently thrive/profit on the migrants will die.
For a variety of reasons they travel here, and they will continue to come, until there is no longer any reason to come.
What would make them NOT want to come.
America's economic collapse, a recession or depression, something that makes getting social supports, or finding a job in America almost impossible for them. That would make the flow of immigration slow to a crawl.
Right now the overwhelming majority of those coming to America are coming because of the economic opportunity they believe to be here... benefits, jobs and because there is little reason not to.
Same reason why hundreds of thousands of Somalian and Afghanistan 'refugees' made their way to Sweden, because it was allowed and there was housing, food, income, and supports there for them.
Take away the incentives, and the millions crossing the border would become mere thousands.
if you were a Haitian living in Haiti, one of the most impoverished nations on the planet, and you had the opportunity to come to America, where your cousin who made it to America two years prior told you about the great assistance available for housing, rent, food, medical care, and critical needs in Portland Maine (just for example) for illegal immigrants... I'm sure you'd do whatever you could to get there.
Its just human nature.
And why is this a problem we can't seem to fix?
Because of our corrupt Congress and cronies in D.C.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axVvCDNyGGIIt would be very unlikely that an economic crisis severe enough to collapse the US economy would be isolated to the US. Much more likely that it would affect other countries around the world, including Central America.
Such an economic crises would therefore result in conditions in Central America deteriorating much more quickly, and severely, than in the US. So rather than curtail migration, an economic disaster of that magnitude would likely increase it.
At that point migration would be less about seeking economic opportunities, and more about seeking safety and security, or at least greater safety and security than could be expected in the migrant's own countries.
The only certain way to stop people wanting to get to the US is for the countries they are in to be safe and prosperous. That's why it's it's in the country's own best interest to help stabilize Central America. All the while people face the combination of violent persecution and lack of economic opportunities, the grass will look greener on the US side of the fence.
The reason for that is indeed "human nature". Specifically, the ability to believe in a positive outcome, despite even the most dire material conditions. We call that hope.
History shows us that the capacity of human beings to hope and act on that hope, is practically boundless. The extremes you would need to go to, to overcome human hope, do not even bear thinking about. Even the North/South Korean border with its minefield and shoot-to-kill policy sees people (driven by hope) crossing the border.
So this is not about how the flow can be stopped. It's about managing the flow. Making sure the flow of asylum seekers in, is relatively evenly balanced with the flow of failed asylum seekers out. That is key.
That can be done but it requires compromise. No one party can drag the country in a direction that half the country doesn't want to go in. That's how this system of government has been designed. Lasting reform can only be achieved through compromise. That's a good thing. It's what protects people on the left and the right of the political spectrum from each other.
The danger is that a stalemate caused by lack of compromise causes such frustration, that people start turning to demagogues who instead of compromising, would simply try to break the system that makes compromise necessary (removing all the protections it affords everyone in the process). That is where we are now. That situation is not conducive to finding sensible solutions to anything."It would be very unlikely that an economic crisis severe enough to collapse the US economy would be isolated to the US. Much more likely that it would affect other countries around the world, including Central America."
Not so.
Infact I believe we are still on track for America's economic downturn, a permanent shift to a sub-economy rather thsn the global leader, similar to Russia or Japan, around 2030.
This will come in dramatic fashion when China has supplanted America fully as the leading industrial and technologically advanced nation, surpassing it in trade and might, with the dollar also being removed as the international reserve.
China will not have to have the worlds largest army, they will have the worlds most powerful Cyberforce, the most advanced satellites and 5G network, the greatest AI operations... They will be able to shut down any nations power grid, internet, satellites, etc.
While we bicker over the stupidest most ignorant things in our culture/society, theirs is fully focused on becoming the most powerful/successful in the world.I don't think you fully appreciate what is going on in central America. An economic "downturn" in the US will simply not have the negative impact on migration flow you think it will.
The region around Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador (dubbed the "Central American Dry Corridor") has experienced erratic weather conditions over the last ten years. This is having a severe impact on populations in that region, as outlined in April by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO):
"Erratic weather patterns in the Central American Dry Corridor leave 1.4 million people in urgent need of food assistance . . . "
"2.2 million people in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua have lost their crops due to rainfall and drought; 1.4 million urgently need food assistance . . . "
"More than 25 percent of the households surveyed do not have enough income to cover their basic food needs and eight percent of the families reported that they plan to migrate in response to this situation."(1)
Obviously violence and persecution are not within the scope of the FAO's mission, but such violence also continues to be a problem in Central American countries.
So what we are seeing on the Southern Border is a crisis-generated population flow. That crisis is not on the Southern Border. It is in Central America.
This conclusion is supported by the changing demographics of migrants coming across the border. For the first time, the majority of migrants are a combination of unaccompanied children, families and members of family units. This is consistent with what we see in other crisis-generated population flows, and indicates that families are fleeing adverse conditions en masse.
People in this situation are often faced with a stark choice: migration of the entire family to the US (improving chances of survival) or staying where they are (reducing chances of survival). Again, survival is a biological imperative. It's part of human nature. So the choice is obvious.
And to be clear, most Central American countries are experiencing the same issues. So going from Honduras to the newly designated "safe" country of Guatemala (which is also within the Dry Corridor) will not help.
A report called "Food security and Emigration" from the World Food Programme outlines the link between food insecurity and migration patterns specifically in South America, and is worth a read(2).
All this to say, the US during an economic downturn, is still a much better prospect than Central America during a time of failed crops and extreme weather conditions.
And it's this background that makes the current administration's threats of sanctions against Central American countries, and its designation of Guatemala as a "safe" country, frankly idiotic.
It's also why the America First approach cannot work in relation to the issue of immigration. We don't live in a bubble. If something negatively impacts countries in Central America, it will impact the US due to the resulting population flows. Likewise, CO2 generated in the US, will increase the likelihood of extreme climate events which will mostly impact on countries that don't have the resilience to cope, like those in Central America. Like it or not, it's in our best interests to be an active force for good in the global community. If we are not, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
This issue requires cooperation and collaboration with our nearest neighbors, not threats of sanctions and legally dubious "deals" that will have no impact on the issue other than to make it worse. We are on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe in Central America, which the current administration's policies are aggravating. If you think migration is bad now, wait and see how bad it will get if/when that happens. We are currently in the process of gleefully shooting ourselves in the foot.
(1) http://www.fao.org/emergencies/fao-in-a … c/1192519/
(2) https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP- … 1485441955But in truth this has been the case for parts of the world for as long as I have been alive, and far longer.
https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-re … mine-facts
https://www.npr.org/2012/11/10/16473249 … eat-famine
Here is the difference, today we seem to think by taking in tens, or hundreds of millions of migrants, we will alleviate these types of disasters. In truth, it is far more likely to bring the ruination of our own society/civilization, just as throughout history such waves of migrations have changed or destroyed 'host' nations in the past.
Now, I happen to think this is more about the powers that be trying to enforce their agendas than any reaction to a 'catastrophe'. As I have written about in articles such as:
https://hubpages.com/politics/The-End-of-America
https://soapboxie.com/economy/Is-the-Mi … ed-Species
There are plenty of reasons for the 'migration crisis', environmental catastrophe is just one excuse behind what is going to be supported and encouraged no matter what by international bodies that have no desire or intention on respecting national borders or sovereign rights."...just as throughout history such waves of migrations have changed or destroyed 'host' nations in the past."
Mass migrations have always caused major changes in the host countries throughout history, with the local culture changing beyond recognition. Look at what the migrations of Europeans did to the Americas, from Canada to Brazil. Or what happened to the aborigines of Australia. To the Hawaiian islands.
In the past those migrations have come from "rich" countries to poorer ones, but there is no reason to think that when the reverse happens there will not be massive change as well, both economically and culturally. One does not create new wealth from masses of immigrants taking wealth from those that have it - it succeeds only in making the "rich" poorer."Here is the difference, today we seem to think by taking in tens, or hundreds of millions of migrants, we will alleviate these types of disasters."
Hundreds of millions Ken? Really? Name one person in this forum who has said they believe taking in "hundreds of millions" of migrants will alleviate the situation in Central America.
And you think "international bodies" are plotting to weaken US sovereignty. Who are these bodies Ken? The UN? The Bilderberg Group? The Axis of evil? The lizard people? Who exactly is out to get the US?
And if you wondered what I meant when I said earlier that you tend to spout unsubstantiated, nonsense. This is it. Don't expect me to accept this baloney as reasonable discussion. It's not. It's the kind of xenophobic, conspiratorial claptrap I'd expect to find on a MAGA Facebook page, and I have no time for it.
The cherry on the cake is offering your own hubs as if they are some king of authoritative source. Is that delusion, arrogance, or both (I'm leaning towards both)? No thanks Ken, I'll decline your invitation to read those hubs. If I wanted to read unsupported, biased, paranoid, conspiratorial, fear-mongering, I'd follow Trump on Twitter.
Do better Ken. Seriously, do better.The links I provide are to information which substantiates my position/facts or in the case of linking to an article where I have already researched and explained my position, so it can be read and debated.
But you don't debate, you label, you insult, you come out and state you won't even read the information.
That's not what someone interested in discussing and debating does, that is what a closed mind does, a mind that is already cemented in its position, and no amount of reason or facts will change it.I'm guessing this means you can't name a single person on the forum who thinks taking in "hundreds of millions" of migrants will alleviate the situation in Central America. Probably because in reality most people think some form of border and immigration control is sensible, but there is disagreement around the best way of achieving that.
So instead of using hyperbole to adjust reality to fit your view, why not use objectivity and adjust your view to fit reality? Because reality doesn't provide you with the opportunity to fear-monger about the "hundreds of millions" of immigrants "we" want to let in, who will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Reality is boring, right Ken?
"The links I provide are to information which substantiates my position/facts or in the case of linking to an article where I have already researched and explained my position, so it can be read and debated."
I don't accept someone's own Hub as a reliable source. If you claim something as factual, but can't support it with a reliable source when asked, then don't expect me to take it seriously.
And what "position" do you think those links substantiate Ken? The idea there have been humanitarian disasters in parts of the world before. That's not a position Ken, it's a statement of the obvious. It has no relevance to the crisis-generated migration flows in Central America today and the impact it's having on the Southern border.
The consequences of the situation in Central America can be seen on the Southern border right now. It's the reason the majority of migrants are no longer single, Mexican men, slipping into the country, evading border patrol, trying to find work. Now the majority of migrants are unaccompanied children and family units from Central America who don't even try to evade apprehension because they want to claim asylum.
That category of migrant has gone through the roof Ken. That's not a coincidence. Everyone in central America hasn't just decided to pack up and drag their children on a perilous thousand mile trip just for the hell of it. It's because erratic weather conditions over the last 10 years have left significant numbers of people in Central America living in extreme poverty with not enough food to eat. You need only look at the changing demographics in the DHS statistics to see that. If you want sources, I'd be happy to provide them.
"But you don't debate, you label, you insult, you come out and state you won't even read the information."
And you talk nonsense about how mysterious, scary "international bodies" are trying to attack US sovereignty. And how "we" (whoever that is) think letting in "hundreds of millions" of immigrants will solve the problem. And how immigrants are going to be the end of civilization as we know it. Why should I debate such cr*p Ken? Why should I not label it conspiratorial, xenophobic, claptrap? That's what it is. And you and I both know you'll be back on the right-wing blogs and conspiracy sites regardless of anything anyone on this forum says. So let's not be naive about it.
If you spent half as much time reading the information coming from those "international bodies" as you do spreading nonsensical conspiracy theories about them, you'd have a better understanding of what's happening. Perhaps then you'd have something to say that's worth debating.
"That's not what someone interested in discussing and debating does, that is what a closed mind does, a mind that is already cemented in its position, and no amount of reason or facts will change it."
I know the difference between good-faith discussion, and talking points from right-wing blogs and conspiracy sites. You do a good job of pretending the latter is reasoned debate, but your unsubstantiated, conspiracy-laden comments fall into the same category as climate change denial, flat earth, QAnon, birtherism, fake moon landings etc. I wouldn't debate any of those "positions" Ken, because they are idiotic. I see no reason to make an exception.
Well lets consider this, PEW states that the 'official' numbers as of 2017 were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S.
I believe the number is likely far higher, as California alone is home to over 2.5 million undocumented immigrants according to their 'official' numbers.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/undocu … alifornia/
Consider the current trends of border crossings today, they are averaging more than 100,000 migrants a month according to 'official' numbers.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
That will average out to well over 10 million this year.
Now lets consider if we remove the illegality of crossing the border, and make free healthcare available to them... and if we are going to essentially legalize border crossing, and guarantee healthcare (along with all sorts of other services I am sure), that 10 million is guaranteed to become 100 million in no time.
That is not hyperbolic at all, that is presenting a fair and common sense outlook on what would occur. If we have over 10 million crossing our borders now, with it being illegal and a President that says he doesn't want them to come... imagine how those numbers will multiply when the doors are swung wide open, and we promise to care for them.
More insults and labeling, without even bothering to review the article. The article notes & quotes the sources, and proves the point. I am not going to re-type the information over and over again, not when I can supply the link to the article: The End of America where it is laid out in detail enough so that someone who wants to research it more, and delve deeper into the issue may do so.
Your labels don't harm me, they just diminish your message.
There are many hard-working illegal immigrants, years ago, I worked with some of them for a couple years. However, I also know of a large circle of illegal immigrants who come here for two things..run drugs and guns. They laugh about how easy it will be for them to come back, change their name, and start over when they are deported following their sentences. It's much easier being an illegal immigrant felon/criminal than it is to be an American criminal.
Indeed, there are two sides to everything.
Are we doing anything to help ease the fighting and misery in their home countries? It seems to me to be the answer to stopping them coming here instead of staying home. We've pissed around in other countries for little or no reason--Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.--so why not a country close by?
Are you suggesting war as an answer?
That's novel. I hope the government doesn't pick up on that idea.I simply suggest helping the people there take their country back. Remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Bush and Cheney couldn't wait to help out the rich city. But these people are fleeing a poor rife stricken country...big difference I suppose.
I don't know Randy. I appreciate the sentiment but I don't know if war is the solution. I'd say investment that creates jobs.
War isn't necessary if you have the right diplomats, LTL.
You are the one who suggested war. Or were you just suggesting an invasion and takeover?
I said what I meant. Helping those people take back their country is on way to stop them from coming here. I think Trump has cut aid to them causing the problem to become worse.
You're being serious? You would involve us in a hundred civil wars to stop illegal immigrants, while pretending there is a moral justification for doing it?
It's hard to imagine a worse "solution".Of course, you always dream up the worst possible scenario and actk as though it is the only option thereby killing, in your mind, any idea that might help people you personally don't want to help.
Wilderness, you are correct. We cannot save the world. America has done more than enough to help people. This explains why we as a nation is in debt. Let nations help themselves.
Yes, we should help people in other parts of the world, Israel is simply one of those countries, but when it comes to those near us it's not worth it. Something stinks about that.
Here's a scenario that you may like: We invade Honduras and Guatemala, remove and replace those governments, obliterate the cartels (in those countries), seize the assets of the cartels and use those assets to help train citizens for work to rebuild their countries. We'd also have to crush MS 13.
Don't know how we'd replace those governments though. Everywhere we've tried this in recent history we've run into a brick wall.
What was the moral justification for the Iraq War, Dan? No WMDs were found as Dubya and his ex- Haliburton VP claimed. After being told Iraq wasn't responsible for the 911 attack, Cheney said, "They have better targets."
Are you positive there are a 100 civil wars in the region? A link supporting your claim would be nice.Seriously. And many of the problems 'solved' would make us look heavy handed and imperialistic.
We screw around in other countries, as I gave an example, so why not help those fleeing the wars in their area? Did you vote for Dubya? Were you okay with him using "fake news" to invade Iraq?
These little SA countries do not have the military firepower of any modern country. A show of force may do the trick without actually fighting them.I habe been against all armed conflicts, except to stop atrocities like genocide, most of my life so I'm probably not the best person to convince here.
Avoided the question as usual. Did you vote for Bush and support his foray into Iraq?
Did you ever hear Bush say he sent in the military to participate/cause a civil war in order to stop asylum seekers?
There might (might!) be a valid reason to participate or instigate a civil war in another country, but to protect their citizens from themselves or reduce asylum seekers is most definitely NOT one of them.Still avoided answering if you voted for Bush and backed hiss invasion of Iraq for fake causes. No WMDs were ever found, but Cheney's ex company reaped billions from the scam. Was that a good move?
Even if one supported the iraq war, as wilderness said these are different circumstances. By your logic, if someone enlisted in WWII they should support your idea of unprovoked invasion and takeover.
The world would not support us in such an outage.Who did we invade and take over in WWII without provocation?
Do you know how we got control of the Panama canal zone? And since when are you guys on the right concerned about what the world thinks? Doesn't your guy Trump want to pull out of NATO and the United nations?I would think you would now be getting an inkling that your idea of a conservative isn't quite on point. Not everyone who identifies as conservative fits your narrow little mold.
I know it seems off topic to you, but let me offer a few observations. After 9/11, the Bush administration convinced the majority of Americans that an invasion of Iraq was justified because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There was plenty of evidence that Iraq no longer had them, but many Americans ignored that evidence and went along with the administration's rah-rah, flag-waving, fear mongering drumbeat for war. I include cowardly Democratic lawmakers in this; they do not get a pass. The Bush administration couched their real reasons for invading Iraq in humanitarian terms because they knew the American people would not get behind a war for oil.
Fast forward to now. We are discussing helping poor people in poor countries for purely humanitarian reasons, and those who (probably) supported invading oil-rich Iraq, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, are balking. Why? Because they haven't been properly propagandized? Or because they are less inclined to help for purely unselfish reasons? Though, as Randy is saying, helping stabilize the source countries would decrease their citizens desire to flee and seek asylum here.
To us who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning because we knew it wasn't about WMD, it seems odd that those willing to take on a much harder mission in Iraq are suddenly reluctant in this situation.Randy comment was very plain. He seems to feel we could help the people of three countries overthrow their standing governments. I must ask, do you feel these governments would not put up a fight and do you think the UN would sanction the USA aggression in these nations? He suggested our military step in to help the citizens take back their countries. If Randy was referring to using some form of diplomacy, the Trump administration has been working with all three counties to try to help solve the many reasons citizens are fleeing their countries, most are fleeing due to poverty, and gang violence.
"Randy Godwinposted 3 days ago
Are we doing anything to help ease the fighting and misery in their home countries? It seems to me to be the answer to stopping them coming here instead of staying home. We've pissed around in other countries for little or no reason--Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.--so why not a country close by?"
I did not vote for Bush, sat that one out... I certainly did not support going into Iraq. I am against war, and I am for helping those in need. I am not for selecting those that need help due to it being the political thing to do at a given time... We certainly turned our backs on the Syrian people, over 500 thousand citizens died. We sat by and watched genocide. We did nothing but lip service. NothingOkay, I'll take your word for it. It is amazing to me how few conservatives say they supported invading Iraq when, at the time, it was at least 80% or more who did. Odd, isn't it?
Me, i don't support military intervention in the source countries, but I didn't support it for Iraq, either, so that makes sense. You are outraged that we didn't help the people of Syria, yet you oppose war. What would you have done to help the people of Syria that was not done by the Obama administration?I don't consider it a war when we are stepping in to prevent genocide. The Syrian people were being killed due to just what Randy suggested the three countries the migrants are coming from do overthrow their governments. A civil war... A peaceful uprising against President Assad of Syria turned into an eight years full-scale civil war, over 500, 000 people are the casualties of that war. If these migrants were escaping genocide I would certainly condone America step in to help bring them to safety. If they were being killed by chemical weapons I would condone we as a nation take aggressive military action to warn any given country we as a people will not sit by and watch this kind of slaughter. When Assad used Chemicals on his people The Trump administration has twice bombed Syria over Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons, in April 2017 and April 2018.
The three countries we are discussing are not currently at war. One could not compare these nations to what is occurring in Syria. They are poor nations with crime problems as well as economic problems. However, people are not being killed due to ongoing civil wars."Peaceful uprisings" against a government do have a way of turning into years of death and destruction. Particularly when other nations then use the war as an excuse to enforce their own desires...only to have a third nation enter the arena with their desires.
Sure it does, you just don't want to answer the question, Shar.
I did vote for bush. I regretted it. I did not support any part of the war primarily because they didn't go in when we could have helped the Kurds.
I'm a conspiracy theorist on 9 11 and think it was a ploy to gain support.Randy, it's very clear you are baiting your comments to deflect the subject.
Did you vote for Obama? We sat by and watched genocide, over 500 thousand men, women, and children died. This was one of the biggest humanitarian tragedies this earth has witnessed. WE SAT BY AND DID NOTHING. It is apparent you selectively chose what humanitarian situations we should find suitable to intervene.You're right. He didn't start a media campaign to gin up support for intervention, did he? Obama was one of the few legislators who opposed the invasion of Iraq, so at least he was consistent.
The truth is, there are many factors to consider when intervening in another country's affairs and our government (under both Democrats and Republicans) often fabricates or distorts the reasons so the American people will tolerate it.Yes, there are many factors to consider when intervening in other countries governments. As a rule after a Coup, the country is in turmoil for many tears, with its people fleeing for safety and economic opportunity.
I used the Obama comparison only to point out sometimes we can become hypocritical when it comes to a given issue. On one note as a nation, we did not help people that were begging for our help. Syria was clearly killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, sometimes with chemicals. The humanitarian issue at the border is up to our nation to handle, to fix... However, if these three nations in question want to change it will be up to them to fight for change. If these government commit humanitarian atrocities, I would be all for my country trying to alleviate suffering. As I was in the case of Syria. Their pleas went unanswered.
I want the people in these facilities to receive help. The conditions are apparent and have been for months. I watched six months ago when Congress held hearings on the conditions and how bad they were. There was no help from either side Dems or Rep... But, I also watched many Dems such as Pelosi and Schumer state over and over, there was no crisis, that the crisis was fabricated.
Yes, now funds have been provided, and yet these funds are only a bandaid. And will only serve as an invitation for more migrants to follow due to newer better accommodations. Nothing has been really solved.
I think when GA started this thread he was hoping for more comments that would offer common sense solutions to our growing border crisis. I would think we could all agreed we need ideas, and maybe even come up with some that make sense.
Clearly it would do just that. Because it is heavy handed and imperialistic; we have no business in other people's internal wars - have we learned nothing from Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and others?
We have more moral right to set up machine guns at the border and simply kill anyone entering illegally than we to march into another country, pick a side, and begin killing anyone we don't like. At least that way Russia won't be there, fighting for the other side of the war we created!I suppose you didn't support Bush when he invaded Iraq, Dan? Did you vote for him as well? Still waiting for the link to the "hundred civil wars."
How do you feel about the US supporting Israel and giving them nuclear weapons, Dan? Is that okay?
Take their counties back? Like we helped the people of Iraq. Do you really think we can just waltz into any given country and train a military, and usurp a government? Perhaps you are being sarcastic?
If you feel we can wage war on three countries tri[ple the possible cost of lives.
"As of June 29, 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of the Iraq War."
We give aid to all three counties involved in the current migration crisis. Are we to be the saviors of the world? Can we afford it? Do the majority of American's feel obligated to step into other counties politics, and dictate to them? We have the UN to address your concerns. Randy, do you know how many we lost in Vietnam and Iraq? Pissed around... I for one am not willing to send our troops into harm's way to police these three problem countries. I am willing to predict I am not alone in my sentiment.
Did you vote for Dubya and Cheney, Shar? And are you up to date on the military power of these countries? They are nothing like Viet Nam or Iraq.
You act as though they are a world power and they're only banana republics. No comparison....Are you up to date on the military power of these three countries?
You have made my point... It would take our military to over through all three of these governments.
Not sure what Bush and Cheney have to do with our current situation in regards to solving our border problem? Very imaginary deflect...
You have given your opinion on how you feel the border problem could be solved. Not sure if overthrowing three countries would help solve our border problem? It most likely would create more people fleeing their countries seeking asylum due to their counties collapsing.
Again, I don't think many Americans would condone such a plan. We would end up paying for the venture to militarily overthrow three countries and the cost of taking in millions of displaced immigrants.No, I did not vote for Bush. I did not support going into Iraq I did not support Obama pulling out of Iraq. I think we have had this very conversation many moons back... I was a Democrat, I voted for Obama both of his terms. I then voted for Trump, due to his aggressive agenda appealed to me. I will in all likelihood be voting for Trump once again, I am satisfied with his job performance. Hopefully, I have answered your questions, and a few more that I am sure would be coming...
Randy, Why not do GA the courtesy of staying on subject. This subject should be bipartisan. The immigration problem has been around a very long time, and I think we can all see no one party is to completely blame. It has been swept under the rug for many years and has grown worse as the years have gone by.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago
0Stop offering them free money and the problem will solve its self.
Kinda reminds me of when the Great Potato Famine caused tens of thousands of Irish families to flee starvation and poverty. There's always those who don't want anyone else to take part in experiencing the land of the free. Usually those already here...
Would you put any kind of limit to the number of refugees/immigrants we allow into our country Randy?
GA
I think we must limit immigration and stop illegal immigration, to the extent that this is possible. Yes, more white American ancestors came here illegally than we like to acknowledge, but this is not the 19th or 20th century. I looked into moving to Australia when I got of college. Getting into that country was not easy. You have to prove your merit. Of course, Australia has the luxury of being an island, making illegal immigration more difficult. But, while I'm far from a nationalist, a nation must have some sort of sovereignty, unless your all far one-world government...not me.
One part of the solution is to end the war on drugs. This is from a 2014 American Conservative article about the child migrant crisis:
"Fortunately, there is one true impartial expert who is not afraid to speak truth above this bipartisan hullabaloo. Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly, head of the United States Southern Command, penned an essay for Military Times earlier this month pointing to the direct cause of the problem: “Drug cartels and associated street gang activity in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, which respectively have the world’s number one, four and five highest homicide rates, have left near-broken societies in their wake.”
Conservatives may be skeptical that the drug violence is the immediate source of the problem, since Central American countries have been in a state of unrest of decades, but the most recent crime statistics are hard to ignore. “By U.N. statistics, Honduras is the most violent nation on the planet with a rate of 90 murders per 100,000 citizens,” Gen. Kelly out. Bordering Central American countries are not too far off either, with Guatemala at 40 and El Salvador at 41. By comparison, the murder rate in current combat zones like Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are starkly lower at 28 per 100,000 as of 2012."
https://www.theamericanconservative/201 … -drug-war/
Of course, this is not a solution for what we do with those who arrive here, but I think it decreases the flow in the long-run and makes our nation closer a free-republic.A Fair and Welcoming Immigration System by Elizabeth Warren https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-fair-a … ff69cd674e
I felt this thread would be a good place for this. There's a lot in here, some good IMO. However, I don't see much of ANYTHING meant to reduce the flow of illegal immigration other than:
"Address the Forces Displacing Migrants from Their Home Countries" This seems to entail throwing a lot of money around and --"Investigate and prosecute human trafficking, employ targeted financial sanctions against drug kingpins and money launderers, and provide robust funding for efforts to counter gangs." --Are we not doing this already???
It's curious that in the fifth paragraph she states "We need real reform that provides cost-effective security at our borders, " Yet nothing is truly proposed for effective security that reduces illegal immigration.
She wants to significantly reduce immigration detention yet raise the refugee cap:
" ’ll welcome 125,000 refugees in my first year, and ramping up to at least 175,000 refugees per year by the end of my first term."
I don't disagree with this in its entirety, but is this the "plan" moderate Americans want?I had a detailed list but lost it. Some of the highlights, though:
Lost of Trump bashing. It seems more important to campaign than to present a plan.
Make the entire country a sanctuary, prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing our laws, or even assisting in the task.
Increase the number of refugees by a factor of 8 and legal immigrants by an unspecified amount
Allow any illegals that make it well into the country to remain without fear of the law.
Amnesty (for the third time) for all illegals that have managed to evade the law and live here.
Throw vast sums of money into educating immigrants.
Fix all the problems of the world that make people want to immigrate. Primary method is to throw money at it.
Address transnational crime. Presumably force other countries and peoples to obey US law.
About the only thing I saw that was even vaguely acceptable was to make the path to citizenship easier; our system simply takes far too long and is too difficult. The rest of it was either to take care of the world or simply Trump bashing.This is about what I got out of it. I think this is supposed to be an outline, a rough draft or something, but I thought Warren was supposed to be good at legislation. It disappoints me that this is all she has now. Of course, this is all just politics of someone running for President. I don't think anything like this could pass, without more on what to do to stem the tide of illegal immigration, even with a Democratic lead House and Senate. If we ever get that, some of those Dems will be from states like Indiana, and I don't think they'll go for it. The Gang of 8 billl we discussed was much closer to what we need, but the biggest security measures were contingent upon certain things happening first pertaining to those who are already here.
I don't think there is an entirely humanitarian way to house families with children. This means if you really care, the number one priorities should be stopping them from getting here and then doing something about the situations where they come from, without just throwing money at it..unless we get something in return other than cheap labor for the wealthy. Call me selfish.
The camps have actually made me more bullish on border security. I think GA is right as well when he states we need fundamental changes to asylum laws.
Even Germany, the country with the second highest number of immgrants annually (according to some source I read yesterday, lol) adjusted its fundament right of asylum, in part, "in order to give the state the legal opportunity to impose an upper limit or quota."
So, why would Warren say we should raise our cap now?"Of course, this is all just politics of someone running for President."
That's how I saw it, particularly with all the bashing of Trump and the administration.
"I don't think there is an entirely humanitarian way to house families with children."
There isn't, not if you want them in court at some future date. And just as you say, that means stopping them, preferably before they cross the border.
"So, why would Warren say we should raise our cap now?"
She expects votes from those that allow their sadness to override their reason. And she might get them, too, especially if she can convince a gullible populace that Trump is to blame for the whole thing rather than the congress that actually shoulders the blame.
Don, I accept your rejection.
However, I am not sure exactly what you are rejecting.
I didn't say your ethical "givens" were only philosophical declarations, I said that your insistence on the application of them to the reality of conditions on the ground was a philosophical application.
And I certainly didn't associate your ethical givens with political solutions.
Since I agree that government should meet basic safe and sanitary conditions I am confused that you think I would think those needs irrelevant.
Whatever you may take as the position and intentions of " [T]he current administration, and many of its supporters . . . " it is my view that you take that perception as a political stance not influenced by the reality of the circumstances on the ground.
It really seems like you expect CBP to perform as Jesus did in The Gospels of John.
GA- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
I handed my tablet to my husband to read through this discussion between wilderness and Don W while I get ready to go to a movie. Keep in mind, he is not a political junkie who enjoys these types of discussions, and I view him as moderate. He was a registered Republican until 2016 when he changed affiliation due to disgust with the Republican party. He fought in the Viet Nam War for three tours, spent 22 years in military intelligence, and idolizes Ronald Reagan. He handed me back the tablet and said, "Sounds like f@ck!n' Hitler."
I'll butt out now and head to my movie. I agree with Don. There have to be procedures implemented to PERMANENTLY CLOSE the detention centers & send the illegals back. We Americans are taxed more than enough already. We don't need anymore unskilled illegals in this country. Just send them back to their respective countries & establish harsher immigration laws.
Oh, I think we can afford, culturally and financially, to support a few thousand refugees each year. But when the total applying reaches the obscene levels it is now it becomes obvious that we cannot. There are forces at work here other than a few people fleeing violence in their own country; we are seeing systematic efforts to destroy who and what we are. And it is working.
Wilderness, I have been following your thoughts and I can align with most of them, but I would offer one caution; do not make this a money issue.
I have been looking for a place to interject this thought; I believe the financial argument ranks well below your other more important points.
It is important, but I don't think it is as important as the implications of accepting the persuasion of the "inhumane" criticisms.
GAI disagree, GA. If we look at the total cost of the illegal aliens currently residing in the country, and project what 10X that number will require, well, we can't afford it.
We already can't seem to provide homes for our people, or decent care for injured vets; bringing in another 50 million or 100 million unskilled laborers will balloon that problem to something catastrophic from a financial point.
The problem that I see is that costs are being projected based on refugees numbers from years ago, rather than that we are currently trying to handle. Now add in that encouraging that activity will very quickly multiply the numbers again and again and I don't see us able to afford it. Trying to do so will simply turn us into another third world country, with no one but the uber rich (if there are any left) enjoying any kind of life style.
We won the cold war by ruining Russia's financial capabilities; we could go down the same path by trying to support the world's poor within our borders. Or without, for that matter.You know. Good point. If this issue was framed as money that would have gone to our veterans that is instead going to illegal aliens, I think that would be hard to argue with. Our veterans suffer because we're redirecting their health care money to make sure illegal aliens have shelter.
Again, not sure what the answer is because if there's a humanitarian crisis, we're supposed to try to behave humanely, but we can't solve everyone's problems when we're not even solving our own.Maybe my point is wrong, or, maybe it was misunderstood.
In the context of a debate of this issue, when the goal is to persuade a public group that primarily gets the information used to form their opinions from media sources, I think to argue against obvious humanitarian issues--particular when they are framed around mothers and children--with costs arguments would not be as productive as first addressing the reality of those humanitarian issues.
As long as an opinion that is swayed by the detention camp images we are all seeing, and as long as those perceptions are buttressed by the 'obvious' truth that we won't even give them a bar of soap, addressing those opinions with "costs" rationalizations seems to me like it might firm the other's opinion rather than inform it.
I think the most important first step would be to force those "other" opinions to understand that their perception of the detention centers' reality--relative to the government's purposefulness in it--is different than is being portrayed.
Get the door open, then further support the point with the reality of the costs.
To do that in reverse is to turn the debate into one of human compassion, illustrated by those children's images vs, dollars. I don't think that is a winning strategy.
That was my point in recommending that the cost issue not be the lead issue--even if in reality it is an important 'real' issue.
I suppose my point was to ask the question; "Do you want to be just right, or successful and right?
GA
I haven't been following but I am surprised at this comment.
The financial angle is the cold splash of the ice water of reality.
It's the thought experiment everyone needs to try.
What are the costs involved? What will existing society have to forgo, in order to implement an unprecedented influx of the poor?
Many elements on the left are quite adept at 'caring' about every single issue they can ferret out as a possible desire by specific groups. I find this particular issue most compelling but, seriously?
What are we, as a nation, willing to give up in order to solve this problem in a manner which gives those outside our borders demanding entry (and those within it illegally) a shot at citizenship?
What sacrifice is the average person willing to make to accomplish this? Sacrifice would be necessary by those already here, to accommodate all those coming; to pay for it.
Social services we all enjoy would have to be cut. Concern for the homeless already here would have to be put on the back burner. Taxes would have to rise considerably. That's the tip of the iceberg.
Claims of compassion, without forethought or willingness to sacrifice, are nothing more than virtue signaling.Live to Learn I hope you see my explanation to Wilderness, and I hope it adds some context to my original response.
"The financial angle is the cold splash of the ice water of reality.
It's the thought experiment everyone needs to try."
Those are very true statements. Ones that I can heartily agree with, but . . .
. . . I think the "reality" of the discussion is that your splash of cold water and the thought experiment you think is important is going to be up against the perception of reality that the whole issue is just the inhumanity of mothers and children cold, dirty, and sleeping on concrete floors.
Would you argue which "reality" comes out on top of that debate with the average media-informed public?
GA
lol, I guess if we don't need anymore "Unskilled Immigrants" here in the USA which is already a vast melting pot of immigrants, I guess you, wilderness, GA and every other alt rightie around here will soon apply for the job of cleaning the toilet in my hotel room after I check out ?? lol
By the way, there is no "CRISIS" at our southern border aside from the humanitarian one which was voluntarily and unilaterally CREATED by the 73 year old impeachee / indictee idiot lurking in our oval office:
This is exciting stuff to me, but maybe I'm a dork.
The DHS and DOJ just issued a new rule bypassing any need for an agreement for those who cross into the US through the Southern Border. It is to be published in the Federal Registry on July 16.
"1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or
torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United
States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country; (2)an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 CFR 214.11; or (3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.
In all cases the burden would remain with the alien to establish eligibility for asylum
consistent with current law,
---Nations that are parties to the convention include Mexico, Belize, Venezuela, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Hounduras, etc.
Actual Rule: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ntral.html
A list of nations bound to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugess: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ShowMTDSG … rticipants
Story about the rule: https://politicallydc.com/2019/07/15/tr … ng-asylum/This would help if the rule survives the coming court challenges.
The rule reads like it does cover its authority issue by equating it with other lawfully allowed discretionary rules conditioning the asylum process.
I bet we will get a quick court opinion.
GAYes, that should be mentioned. I think the ACLU challenged Trump's order meant to deny asylum to migrants who enter the country illegally the day after it was issued back on November 9, 2018. Twelve days after the order was issued " U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … 561a12c1b1
This new rule does seem well though-out with some behind covering as to Congressional authority provided to the AG and repeatedly stating it will be done in keeping with certain exception that may apply under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).
We will see.
Just FYI to all the white nationalists on this pathetic thread, Donald Trump is a disgusting ugly RACIST and almost everything he blabs about is laced with seething racism: As major social media sites finally begin to BAN alt right crazies, Bozo’s last remaining base of fools, I’m still surprised that hubpages allows venomous vitriol to be spewed in such abundance around here, they should be ashamed of themselves:
Moreover, it’s too bad a crocodile filled moat wasn’t in place surrounding the USA when the Watkins, Trumps, Pences, McConnells, Romneys, Cruzs and Hannitys tried so desperately to get into the USA after their ancestors from Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Poland, Japan or wherever, fled their nations of origin to get away from whatever calamity they were forced to endure back home such as famine: If they were denied entry into this FAILING Collapsing once great nation, we would certainly be much better off today:
Just remember, the Irish, Scottish, English, Germans, Poles, Japanese and immigrants from every other ethnic jurisdiction around this globe, regardless of legal or illegal entry into this once great nation, suffered the very same Unlawful HATE Filled Harassment as the Mexicans of today are forced to endure and that’s an APPALLING Abomination here in the year 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcklUUIsdcwlol, did you know crossing the border is only a "Misdemeanor" just like your ancestors did decades ago but there are at least 1,000 and counting lawyers who can't wait to INDICT Donald Trump for High CRIMES including Obstruction of Justice ???? A reckless elderly man who is now considered by many experts as an "Un-Indicted Co-Conspirator" ??
I have ancestral immigration documentation that would suggest otherwise. Also, I don't care about Trump.
The real solution is to stop promising to give taxpayer money to them for nothing." can't wait to INDICT Donald Trump for High CRIMES including Obstruction of Justice ?"
I can' wait to see what you come up with why Trump wins a second term... One thing I can truly say about you Jake is you have a fabulous imagination.
GA Anderson
What a great questioned to ask.
We had a civil war dividing this country the North against the South you had to take a stand and pick a side (thank God the South lost.) there was no running away.
If I were in charge I would take a South American country go in with troops and help them build a country with the infrastructure that was like ours. Yes we still have our problems but people still want to come here.
We can help them and learn from our mistakes. work with them. It wont be an easy task, It will take time and a lot of money.
People will want to stay in their country, be loyal to it and educate the people, build schools, healthcare, make it a place were they feel free and safe.
It would take the pressure off the border. But it will take time.
I really think people don't want to leave their homes and family.
If they can live in peace and are protected.
I am not a warmonger. I served in the military for 37 years and the last thing I want to do is send young Americans in harm's way.
I really like your question, thank you for letting me responed.Thanks for your thoughts KC101. However, I am not sure how citizen's of any of the South American countries would feel about losing their sovereignty, or how our citizens would feel about dying for such an effort.
GA
Promoting one's own articles is a clear no-no on HubPages. Not only is it cheesy, it breaks HP rules. But then, Ken's hero cares not for rules either.
Related Discussions
- 50
Why do Democrats defend violent, criminal illegal immigrants?
by Readmikenow 7 weeks ago
Wisteguens Jean Quely Charles is a member of a violent Haitian street gang with 17 convictions to his name, including multiple drug, weapons, and assault and battery crimes. Ariel Rene Romice-Patino is a Mexican national who was hit with a 62-month prison sentence for sexual exploitation of a...
- 177
Illegal Immigrants Pouring Without Any Indication Of A slow Down.
by Sharlee 19 months ago
I see no need for a lengthy introduction to this thread. No need to make mention of the historical stats to prove the point that Biden's administration has seen many millions presenting at our border, and this week we see a huge increase in the numbers. What looks like will be historic numbers for...
- 28
Democrats destroying the concept of Citizenship
by Ken Burgess 14 months ago
Why do Democrats refer to undocumented individuals (aka migrants) as citizens?To abolish the concept of citizenship.‘Democratic citizenship’ puts emphasis on citizens' duties and the expectation that they be active in society. In order to do this, they must be familiar with and respect the...
- 138
"Concentration Camps"?
by IslandBites 5 years ago
Yesterday, AOC and a group of members of the Congress visited some migrant camp facilities. They denounced the conditions they saw. Today, they were called liars by GOP members, FOX, Limbaugh & co, and even some right-wing pastors.But tonight the Department of Homeland Security's Office of...
- 16
Biden's Immigration Plan -- More Children Now Living In "Cages"
by Sharlee 4 years ago
CARRIZO SPRINGS, Tex. — Dozens of migrant children boarded vans this week for the trip down a road to a former camp that was used by oil field workers. This is the first migrant child facility opened under the Biden administration as an emergency facility, a vestige of the Trump...
- 38
Obama Administration REFUSES to PROTECT OUR BORDERS
by MikeNV 13 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on the South Korea/North Korea Border.And the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES to...