Babies & other children taken from their parents "In our name"

[Shepherd]

If ever there was a form of terrorism, it is babies and other children being taken from their parents, such as is happening in Texas, as described and documented below. And these people call themselves "Christians."

Rep. O'Rourke: Family separation 'inumane,' 'un-American'

This link is to the MSNBC News story on Friday about what's happening at some of the borders, re: children being taken from their parents as per AG Sessions' decree and now U.S. policy.

The man interviewed, Rep. Beto O'Rourke, US Congressman from El Paso, Texas, is running for the U.S. Senate against Ted Cruz. This stunning interview is his first-person account of the scene at one Texas border crossing where he witnessed what is being done to families seeking asylum. These atrocious acts, the ripping of children away from their families, are being done in our name, the people of the United States. It's cruel and debased actions, premeditated and purposefully done to terrorize families seeking asylum here, under the guise of U.S. law. Whether such actions are legal is arguable, but the fact is it's happening right now and it's happening to hundreds of kids and their families.

What can be done to stop this I don't know, but I do know that this should not stand.

Please watch this interview from a most articulate and passionate politician and pass it on. Somehow we must stop this assault on children. Children who will be forever scarred by this cruelty. Another monumentally shameful moment in our history.

[Shepherd]

I've been heartbroken by recent news stories of children being torn away from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border.

If you've been heartbroken too, then will you click here now to add your name to my short and simple petition to Congress and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen? It says: "Stop tearing children away from their parents. Families belong together."

One story described a mother whose baby girl was yanked from her arms while she was breastfeeding her.¹ The mother cried out and tried to hang on to her child as government agents forcibly separated them.

Hundreds of other families have been torn apart since the Trump administration enacted this brutal new policy.

This shockingly cruel, traumatic, and inhumane practice has no place in our country. It must be stopped immediately, and without holding these children hostage to pass other anti-immigrant policies.
Will you add your name to this short and simple petition? It says:
Stop tearing children away from their parents. Families belong together.

Sign the petition

We must speak loudly enough, and in large enough numbers, that the media stays focused on this story. Together, we can make sure that Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, other members of the Trump administration, and every member of Congress have no choice but to stop separating families.

All of us are someone's child. Many of us are mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents; we're aunts and uncles; we're friends and neighbors who watch out for each other's children.

Keeping children with their mothers and broader families is something that should transcend party, geography, ideology, and other lines that often divide us.

No politician should be able to hide from the images and stories of families being separated—and of children sleeping on floors in former Walmarts and kept in prisons, locked in what can only be described as cages. We must speak out and demand that this cruel treatment of children and families stop.

Will you click here to add your name and declare that children and their families belong together? The petition says: "Stop tearing children away from their parents. Families belong together."
Let's keep raising our voices to stop this tragedy—and show love and support for these children and their families.
—Natalie Portman

Sources:
1. "She says federal officials took her daughter while she breastfed the child in a detention center," CNN, June 14, 2018
https://act.moveon.org/go/41122?t=18&akid=209579%2E18866930%2Ej5gqTT

2. "The Trump administration's separation of families at the border, explained," Vox, June 11, 2018
https://act.moveon.org/go/41123?t=20&akid=209579%2E18866930%2Ej5gqTT

Want to support MoveOn's work on family separation? Senator Jeff Merkley says, "If you believe that separating children from their families is wrong—and that it's got to stop—then will you chip in monthly to help MoveOn fuel their campaign against this moral outrage, and build the political power to stop this and other horrific policies targeting immigrant families?"

Yes, I'll chip in $5 a month.
No, I'm sorry, I can't make a monthly donation.
Contributions to MoveOn.org Civic Action are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. This email was sent to Shepherd Bliss on June 17th, 2018. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.

[BEE KIND]

The ACLU is actively working thru the legal system to stop this. The best thing we can do as individuals besides voting for Democrats., is to support the ACLU. They represent people who cannot pay them, so they need donations to continue doing their important work. Yes, they need money to live on, too. They are lawyers who could be making much more money in other fields.

[spam1]

What can be done to stop this I don't know, but I do know that this should not stand.
.

Jump to the bottom to see the two questions in bold if this is TLDNR, and please correct my understanding if my review of the judges' discussion isn't correct. What can be done depends on how you answer the questions.

I just heard an immigration judge explain the details. As I understand it (and apparently as he adjudicates it):

1) If undocumented families arrive at a "port" (border crossing) and apply to enter without proper documentation, but claim asylum, the entire family is detained and housed in DHS (depart. of homeland security) family housing until they are either granted asylum or deported. In this case the family is not separated.

1a) due to lack of resources and family housing units, the border is closed many days to people legally seeking asylum and they must wait in Mexico until a family housing unit opens up. That is, their asylum request is not accepted. There are a very limited number of openings so they must wait days or weeks in Mexico.

1b) Speculation: I think, but didn't hear, that in the past the border was not closed, but legal asylum seekers were given "appearance notices" and allowed to enter the interior. A large percentage fail to appeared (37%), likely because a large percentage (57%) of asylum requests were denied...but in fact the judge did not mention this aspect.

2a) If undocumented families cross the border in any other way, it is a misdemeanor and they are liable for prosecution and up to 6 months in jail. This law was passed back in the Bush days by a democratic congress.

2b) As a result of several lawsuits, it was agreed by the Obama admin that the children would not be held by DHS but MUST be remanded to HHS (Health and Human Services). I believe this was a result of some children who were trafficked for the purpose of entry, and this was to prevent such trafficking. Thus the current law REQUIRES children of parents arrested for the crime in 2a to be removed from their custody (in DHS) and remanded to HHS.

--side note: the judge recommended and both current bills going through congress change the law to allow parents charged with 2a to be housed together in DHS until the legal conclusion of the case...if found guilty and given jail time in the US I believe the children at that time would be remanded to HHS

The Obama administration ordered DHS to NOT prosecute the crime in 2a. He had this authority to not prosecute as the law gives "prosecutorial discretion in certain cases" and he used this clause to never prosecute. Instead the parents were given citations to appear, which many never appeared for trial. This is the "catch and release" and led to the widespread belief that if one could just get across the border, one would always be released and then remain hidden in the interior unless caught by ICE. The big change with Trump was to enforce the law as written. And to not provide "appearance notices" to legal asylum seekers. His reasoning is that too few appeared to make that process an effective control of immigration.

The two arguments are:

1) it is inhumane to separate children from their family, so "catch and release" is the only humane option, under the law

or

2) protecting the border means not doing "catch and release" and the current law requires the separation of children. Without enforcement, it encourages people to make attempt to cross.

One solution, which does enforce border security, is to allow illegal entries to be housed in family housing until the misdemeanor case is resolved. This requires a change in the law.

Another solution is to fully open the borders, this also requires a change in the law. And is opposed by a large majority of Americans (for some legitimate and some illegitimate reasons, IMHO)

Further, the law on what constitutes an asylum claim is not entirely clear: for example a woman living in southern Mexico applied for asylum due to spousal abuse, this was determined to not satisfy the requirements, as that judge indicated there was the whole of Mexico for her to move to. Asylum typically has to be avoiding a systematic State or Statelike action of abuse, as I understand it. Thus economic refuges are typically refused asylum. Changes here would also require change in law or interpretation of the law.

Finally note: in the last 10 years there have been times that the both parties control both houses of congress and the presidency, and yet nothing was done to clarify or resolve anything in this area. Pox on both their houses.

So the question is: Can you have secure borders (which 79% agree the US should have) and have the "catch and release" policy?

Or, are you part of the 21% who believe the borders should be essentially open between our country and others, as it is between our state and others?

[Shepherd]

I consider an edict that children should not be picked up or cuddled to be cruel, evil, and inhumane. What does it say about us, as humans, that we tolerate such behavior? Much of the world looks aghast as America sinks into hell.

[spam1]

I consider an edict that children should not be picked up or cuddled to be cruel, evil, and inhumane. What does it say about us, as humans, that we tolerate such behavior? Much of the world looks aghast as America sinks into hell.

It says we are dealing with a difficult situation, with a choice of one bad outcome (child separation from parents who illegally enter the country, of their own choice) against another -presumed- bad outcome, unlimited immigration. Under the current law, that is the choice. You may prefer unlimited immigration, that is your right, but it will also have consequences. But the parents have to either be detained, or released, they cannot be held and have their children with them, that is the current law.

No thinking person disputes this is bad for children. But it is also bad for children when we incarcerate a parent for dealing drugs, or robbery in the US. Still, the consequence of not punishing adults for their crimes may generate a worse outcome. That is one of the reasons people want to come to the US: security which comes from law enforcement. The previous policy of catch-and-release proved no deterrent to illegal immigration. 79% of Americans said they want secured borders; this is what it looks like, with our current congress at an impasse and no compromise considered.

What struck me here was the edict that the children could not be picked up or cuddled. Legal or not legal, it is inhumane.

This is also the case in our local public schools, at least according to a kindergarten teacher I know. They are strictly prohibited from cuddling children due to concern about child sexual abuse. So again a choice between two bad outcomes: No cuddling or risk child sexual abuse.

And neither of you answered the question: given the current Sophie's choice of either : Unsecured, essentially open borders (and the perils to children that their parents place them in through the journey across Central America and Mexico, with the well documented physical, sexual and psychological abuse of the smugglers and coyotes), and Enforcement of border security (which current laws require separating children from parents who chose to cross illegally instead of waiting at the board for an asylum interview) ; which do you choose?

And why do you put no blame or responsibility on the parents who choose to take such a risk? I read in the paper about an extended family that had to wait 10 days for their interview, and then only 3 could enter (due to lack of DHS family housing), the others had to wait in Mexico for further space. These parents chose to not enter illegally, and they have not been separated from their children. Why should others, who choose differently, be rewarded; and if they are, what is the incentive for anyone to follow the US immigration law.

And why don't you ask your representative to pass one of the two bills in Congress. Yes it contains wall funding, but it resolves DACA and Child Separation, at a cost a few billion dollars most which will at least go to workers building the wall. So it's a reasonable compromise, I think. And in 2 years, the next president can halt the wall if they wish.

[Shepherd]

Thank you for signing my petition, Tell Secretary Nielsen: Stop separating families!.

As of now, the petition has received 124304 signatures! To really make a difference, we need a lot more people to join in. Can you share this petition with all your friends?

Click here to share it on Facebook:

Share on Facebook

Then, forward the email below to everyone you know.

Thanks!

—Lily Folkerts


Here's a sample message to send to your friends:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

“I just want to know where my daughter is and that she is safe. She’s two years old, and it’s been two months since we were separated—I don’t know why we were separated. I don’t understand. We came here to seek help, we were afraid for our lives.”

-Father, seeking asylum and being held in an adult immigration detention center at the U.S. southern border in August 2017. Described as “very depressed” due to the separation by his housing mates to WRC.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Secretary Nielsen’s leadership has been tearing children apart from their parents to scare others from coming to our borders.

There’s no justification for this practice. These families and children aren’t threats to our safety. They’re often fleeing unspeakable violence and persecution in their home countries. Many are from Central America, home to some of the most dangerous countries in the world.

The administration h as claimed that they must separate children from their parents to protect them. But policies exist for protecting children—and separating them from their parents is not the way. There’s no security crisis either. Border apprehensions are at decades-low levels, according to the government’s own data.

It’s cruel to punish parents who are doing everything they can to protect their children and to punish children by depriving them of their parents. Separating a child from a mother or father only leads to more trauma for all. Losing a child is every parent’s worst nightmare.

DHS shouldn’t play politics with families to try to discourage people from seeking protection, and there’s no legal basis for doing so either. Family unity is one of our core values and is reflected in our laws. Our government has a responsibility under U.S. immigration law to hear a person’s immigration or asylum case, not to try to scare them away from asking for help . Doing so puts these families at extremely high risk of experiencing further rights violations.

Separating families is also expensive. By some estimates, the government practice of detaining mothers and children apart from each other would cost taxpayers an average of $327 million per year. And keeping families locked up together is also expensive and cruel, when there are cost efficient and effective alternatives to detention. That money won’t make our country safer; it would only waste taxpayer dollars.

Separating families or keeping them locked up in detention is NOT a solution. It won’t make us safer or stop people from seeking protection when they have no other option. It’s not who we are.

Sign this petition to tell Secretary Nielsen to stop separating families at the border once and for all. Children belong with their parents in safe communities, not locked up in detention centers. We are better than this.

This petiti on is sponsored by Al Otro Lado, Alianza Americas, Amnesty International USA, Kids in Need of Defense, Latin America Working Group, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, MomsRising, National Immigrant Justice Center, Women’s Refugee Commission

That's why I signed a petition to Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which says:

"Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, abandon the cruel, costly, and unjustified practice of separating families seeking protection at our borders, including those who are fleeing persecution in their home countries. Children belong with their parents in safe communities, not locked up in detention centers."

Will you sign the petition, too? Click here to add your name:

https://petitions.moveon.org/p/e_8oc_XvDq

Thanks!

---

You're receiving this message because you signed the Tell Secretary Nielsen: Stop separating families! petition on the MoveOn.org petition website. MoveOn Civic Action does not endorse the contents of this email or the petitions posted on MoveOn's public petition website. If you don't want to receive e-mail about this petition, click here to unsubscribe.

[spam1]

One response to you, spam, in particular: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...27622e5f8b45d5 As George Bernard Shaw described the fox hunt: -- the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable. This Slate piece carefully constructs the history of the moment so that it is clear to any mushead. If mushheads bear relevance to snowflakes, think avalanche.

It appears that interest in this thread has dropped and isn't that interesting?

I read the link, and it just seems like a word salad that does nothing to address the core problem, and neither do you address the core problem. So I ask again, on the core problem of immigration, do you:
1) Think we should have completely open immigration (which brings one set of problems)
2) Think we should have secure borders (which brings another).

I am truly interested in your opinion, or is there a third choice? Remember, any policy decision will be reacted to; when the policy of not detaining families with children was introduced, more families with children crossed the border. "Kind-of" secure borders just leads to situations like this.

The easy thing to say is "that's bad, we must not do that" and then never address the consequence.

It seems most people what to stick with established policy of "if you can sneak into the US, you can stay, until you commit a crime that's bad, like rape or sex abuse; and we also get to exploit you because you have to hide in plain sight". One way to address this is legalize anyone who can sneak in..., another is to be more adamant about enforcing border law...or just keep everything at a low, unsavroy simmer, which seems to be the current plan of everyone who is against the current action.

I hear every day, from both sides, "comprehensive immigration reform" but nobody, nobody at all , can say what that means. And if it means anything other than "open borders", then we will have to deal with the enforement against families. How to do it?

Finally, I find it just a little ingenuous that in Caracas there is a truly terrible situation for children (way, way, way worse than in any border facility), but no one cares because TV stations don't put them on the news

[MikeH]

Yes speaking of Caracas, look what is going on in Venezuela. People are starving, parents cannot feed children, even fathers working for the national oil company. And you can bet that if Venezuela bordered Texas they would be crossing over. NY Times article -

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/w...l-economy.html

“Before, you worked and you were rich,” Mr. Navas said of his oil company job. “Your salary bought anything you needed. Now you can’t buy anything, not even food.”.....When The New York Times interviewed Mr. Navas in May, the monthly salary for a worker like him was barely enough to buy a whole chicken ...

But the bottom line is there's no excuse for this nonsense because, in the case of Venezuela, there is this FACT:

Oil reserves in Venezuela. The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels (4.72×1010 m3) as of 1 January 2014.



So whose fault is this nonsense, that everyone must flee or starve????? 297 billion barrels of oil has a value of 19.3 trillion USD, that is what they are sitting on, yet they are broke and starving!

[Lilith Rogers]

Well, this does clarify a lot of what's happened in the past and how it's been changed under DT to be even more hostile to immigrants coming from the south so thank you. And--the laws need to be changed NOW!! People would not leave their homes and extended family behind and come to this country facing the risks they do if they didn't have good reason to do so. And the trauma being inflicted on the parents and children by the way they are now being treated--I frankly can't bear to watch the scenes of the crying children being pulled from their mothers' arms--is absolutely horrible and unjust and unjustifiable. It must stop NOW. Open the borders and allow these poor people to make a better life here. It's what my great grandparents from Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Austria did. Oh, they were white--so they were alright.

Lilith

Jump to the bottom to see the two questions in bold if this is TLDNR, ...

[spam1]

... Open the borders and allow these poor people to make a better life here. It's what my great grandparents from Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Austria did. Oh, they were white--so they were alright.
Lilith

Finally, a direct answer (which no politicians are willing to give). So now the next question: is there any limit?
Do we only let in those who trek across mexico, or will we let in those from the north?
There are something like 1.2 billion Indians: is there any limit on the number that can come? From what I read we could easily see a few million a year. And if we do let any come who want, where do we build the houses, and do we allow them to build and live in substandard housing or are they required to meet all of California's strict requirements.

I don't see how we can let in an unlimited number, and if it is known that we will, there will be no doubt be a very much larger number than we now see. Everyone says it is a terrible journey they have suffered, so only the most desperate come, even knowing they have only a slim chance of entry. How do we handle the mass of people once the restrictions are lifted. I don't blame them for coming, but how did their countries become so terrible, and how do we prevent that from happening here? It is a serious question.

For the last 12-15 years, the policy was make it hard, but if they get in, OK, ignore them until you cannot. If that is what we think we should do, at least let make it official.

There were limits on your grandparents, and they likely entered through Ellis Island (as mine did) following a policy of the US. If you want to say "let's increase immigration" I think that is fine: but I think there must be some limit.

[Barry]

...For the last 12-15 years, the policy was make it hard, but if they get in, OK, ignore them until you cannot. If that is what we think we should do, at least let make it official.

Well put. I don't see any reason, other than DT's fear mongering his base with stories of gangs and murderers, for his own political interest, to change the way it was, given that there is not a better answer.

If you want to make it "official" then pass a DACA bill and naturalize the Dreamers. They've worked hard and stayed out of trouble and this is their home.

Yeah, the families with kids will get caught and released and they may or may not come to their hearing. It's the best the can be done politically, and physically, at the moment. If they get into trouble, they'll be deported. They'll take jobs that we don't want, including harvesting our food and caring for our elderly. Many even pay taxes while receiving very few public benefits.

Having a proper debate about the appropriate levels of immigration would be a fine thing, except as we see, there is no way to guard the southern border, including DT's stupid wall. We may be able to stem the flow of immigrants by air and sea, but not by land.

What would help, though, is having a foreign and economic policy that encourage freedom and development in Central America so people won't feel the need to flee their country.

[Barry]

Here's a good summary of how we got to this point of family-separation, including the well-intentioned but ultimately misguided rationale for a failed and heartless policy:



Trump didn’t invent family separation, but his administration was willing to try it

It's well worth reading in entirety!

It begins with:
"It was an idea conceived by senior immigration enforcement officials and U.S. border agents who had confronted the migrant crisis of 2014. By ramping up criminal prosecutions and separating families who entered the country illegally, they said, the government could stop the influx.

Their idea went to top Obama administration officials at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security. Then it went into a drawer, like a blueprint for a weapon too terrible to use.

The Trump administration took office willing to go deep into the government’s immigration enforcement arsenal — even at the risk of triggering a political and humanitarian crisis. Now, what once was seen as an option too toxic and extreme has fractured more than 2,500 migrant families in the past two months, feeding public outrage while testing Americans’ willingness to accept a government policy that inflicts child trauma."

{Snip}


It ends with:

"Trump said Tuesday that the measures need more time to work and that backing off now would send the wrong signal to smugglers — one that would encourage more lawbreaking.

“When people come up, they have to know they can’t get in, otherwise it’s never going to stop,” he said, accusing Democrats of blocking his agenda to allow illegal immigration to “infest” the country.

“Politically correct or not, we have a country that needs safety and security,” Trump said, insisting that the United States has “one chance to get it right.”

Border crises have come in cycles, and Gil Kerlikowske, who was head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under Obama, said he doubted that a threat of family separation will deter many people fleeing horrific violence in Central America.

“You have to have a heart of stone if you can’t feel some level of compassion for these people,” he said. “If people are willing to risk lives dying in the desert, or to be raped or robbed or assaulted, I’m not sure a stronger message will make a difference.”

[Shepherd]

Statement of the
Interfaith Council of Sonoma County
on U.S. Government Family Separation Policy

June 19, 2018

We decry the deliberate separation of children from parents as a deterrent to illegal entry at the border. This cruel and immoral practice that inflicts unconscionable harm to children, parents and entire families has stirred the conscience of vast numbers of Americans, including current and former residents of the White House, but remains official policy. The U.S. government’s “zero tolerance” policy is applied indiscriminately to asylum seekers fleeing intolerable violence in Central America, desperate individuals, and families seeking refuge. Instead, these tired and poor are torn apart from each other, literally separating children, even uncomprehending toddlers, from a parent.

Regardless of any political rationale, the actions conducted by the U.S. government are an affront to the values of a moral society, a violation of sacred bonds that are at the core of all religions and ethical codes, and a serious erosion of the moral fiber of the nation. By endangering the mental health of children, the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services are violating laws prohibiting child abuse.

The Interfaith Council of Sonoma County calls for:

• An immediate end to separation of children from parents and the placement of minors in detention facilities that are tantamount to prisons;

• Cessation of the “zero tolerance” policy until such time as law enforcement at the border can be conducted ethically and legally.

We recognize the importance of three bills introduced into the Senate and House in recent weeks: S.3036 – “Keep Families Together Act;” S. 2937, “HELP Separated Children Act;” and H.Res.927 – “Condemning the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy.”

We note with dismay that to date the outrage expressed by religious organizations and widely known faith leaders has not deflected the government from its harsh and hard-hearted policy and actions.

References

Pending legislation:
• S 3036 - Keep Families Together Act
(Sen. Feinstein, Dianne - D - CA, and 48 Co-Sponsors)
• S 2937 - HELP Separated Children Act
(Sen. Smith, Tina - D -MN, and 26 Co-Sponsors)
• H Res 927 - Condemning the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy
(Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. - D-CT, and 150 Co-Sponsors)

Background Articles:
• Seizing Children From Parents at the Border Is Immoral. Here’s What We Can Do About It
by New York Times Editorial Board, June 14, 2018
• 'I wanted to Stop Her Crying': The image of a migrant child that broke a photographer's heart
by Avi Selk, Washington Post, June 18, 2018
• ‘It’s Horrendous’: The Heartache of a Migrant Boy Taken From His Father
by Miriam Jordan, New York Times, June 7, 2018
• United Methodist Church Slams Family Separations, Calls Trump Policy "Antithetical to the Teachings of Christ"
by Alexandra Hutzler, Newsweek, June 16, 2018

[Shepherd]

Assembly member Marc Levine, North Bay
Action for Immigrant Children

Dear Friends,
This is one of those times when outrage is not enough.

When the Trump administration uses family separation to intimidate asylum seekers, we have to take action.
That's exactly what we're doing in the California Legislature. And we plan to keep on doing what it takes to protect those who come here to escape violence, persecution or death.

In 2015, I wrote a law that already has kept some children out of detention centers by providing them court-appointed guardians as they navigate the immigration system. I also wrote the law that gives immigrant children the same kind of privacy protections as everybody else.

I've met some of those children, and this year I have a bill to expand my guardianship law and help more children.

I also support a measure to establish a state agency to coordinate public- and private-sector efforts to help migrants make a smooth transition into their new communities. I'm likewise backing efforts to make sure the youngest and most vulnerable have access to medical care; to ensure due process; and to protect workers from unscrupulous employers.

And I voted to provide resources to help guide young students and their families through the immigration and naturalization process.

I consider all of this a clear reflection of the values of inclusion and equity that define who we are as Californians. And it proves once again that you can make things better when you're willing to turn your outrage into action.

Please visit my Facebook page and let me know what you think.

Sincerely, MARC LEVINE
Please feel free to visit my website or contact me on social media. Please click on Facebook and Twitter below.

[Dogenzip]

You are believing a lie: the separation of children from their parents is not in the law. It is a result of an presidential order which was reversed today.

The fundamental assumptions of your post are racist: that immigration is bad for the country; that the USA should not provide an adequate vetting procedure for people seeking refuge from chaos and violence in their country of origin; and that 'these people' who are mainly brown are often terrorists, criminals and would 'infest' our country. This is the language of fascism. Reminds me of Germany in the 1930's.

A wall would do nothing to resolve the immigration situation.

[podfish]

...: given the current Sophie's choice of either : Unsecured, essentially open borders (and the perils to children that their parents place them in through the journey across Central America and Mexico, with the well documented physical, sexual and psychological abuse of the smugglers and coyotes), and Enforcement of border security (which current laws require separating children from parents who chose to cross illegally instead of waiting at the board for an asylum interview) ; which do you choose?

I don't accept your binary, and I don't agree that you've given an accurate picture. They are not "open borders", thought they're relatively porous. My favorite example of how a society deals with laws are traffic laws. People are talking about doing border enforcement in a way equivalent to putting police-monitored GPS in all cars for traffic law enforcement. We don't do that, but it doesn't mean that every road is an old-style autobahn either. You can increase enforcement in a variety of ways, and more importantly you can attack the causes of the 'misbehavior' - that's what traffic engineers do. The lack of interest in what our country can do to make the immigrant's home countries livable is baffling to me.

[spam1]

You are believing a lie: the separation of children from their parents is not in the law. It is a result of an presidential order which was reversed today..

As I understand it, the first order was to prosecute all who enter illegally (where in the past many were not prosecuted). A consequence of that and a legal decision from the Obama era (2014) required the children to NOT be detained, but sent to HHS. The reversal today did not change the first part, but requested the overseeing judge to allow a longer (indefinite?) time for children to be detained with their parents. Separation was a legal requirement, detainment was a presidential policy. The current only alternative to detainment is Catch and Release

The fundamental assumptions of your post are racist: that immigration is bad for the country; that the USA should not provide an adequate vetting procedure for people seeking refuge from chaos and violence in their country of origin; and that 'these people' who are mainly brown are often terrorists, criminals and would 'infest' our country. This is the language of fascism. Reminds me of Germany in the 1930's. (emphasis Spam1)

I did not make assumptions, except to say that unlimited open borders would bring a different set of problems. Where would we put 1 million or 10 million more people. Should there be any limit, or no limit? Its a policy question, I asked the question, but you don't answer...And if you chose to answer "some limit", then how to enforce it; and I appreciate you not calling me Hitler directly, although I sense an inference. There are large countries with horrible poverty and difficult situations (Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia) where it is reasonable to expect many millions to want to emmigrate to the US... back to the question: should anyone who wants to come be allowed to come? Is it racist to ask?

A wall would do nothing to resolve the immigration situation.

Making it more difficult to cross the border physically seems like it would tend to reduce the number of people trying to do it. But perhaps not. Still, if it does nothing (except cost money) why not fund it to achieve DACA...what's the harm? That is still on the table.

[spam1]

It is this country's bloody meddling in Central America that has created the problems that the refugees seeking asylum are fleeing.

I'm not sure that's true (for example, Venezuela's problems don't seem related) but let's suppose it is true, and I ask the question (which surely by now you should be prepared to answer), "Should the official policy of the US be, for anyone from Central America, to be allowed to emigrate for any reason, as a penance for bad acts in the past?" AND if so,
where to put them?

[wisewomn]

Have you heard that children were separated from their parents under Obama & Clinton? Then, you need a little Facts vs Myths lesson. Michelle Martin, PhD Cal State Fullerton summed up the most important FACTS:
There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration's new "zero tolerance" policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research...As a professor at a local Cal State, I research and write about these issues, so here, I'll make it easier for you:

Myth: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton - FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the brainchild of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit. https://www.justice.gov/…/press-rele…/file/1049751/download…

Myth: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration - FALSE. Annual trends show that …

Myth: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs - FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. …

Myth: We're a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get - FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. ...

See the full post here on Facebook

[spam1]

I don't accept your binary, and I don't agree that you've given an accurate picture. They are not "open borders", thought they're relatively porous. My favorite example of how a society deals with laws are traffic laws. People are talking about doing border enforcement in a way equivalent to putting police-monitored GPS in all cars for traffic law enforcement. We don't do that, but it doesn't mean that every road is an old-style autobahn either. You can increase enforcement in a variety of ways, and more importantly you can attack the causes of the 'misbehavior' - that's what traffic engineers do. The lack of interest in what our country can do to make the immigrant's home countries livable is baffling to me.

Now someone is starting to make sense: You are right, it is not binary but more like quinary (Is that a word?)
1) Open Borders (anyone from anywhere can come for any reason)
2) Porous Borders, lose enforcement (what we had under Bush)
3) Porous Borders, some enforcement (what we had under Obama, who I note deported more than Bush)
4) Porous Borders, strong enforcement (something like what Trump is proposing now)
5) Secure Borders (use every means to reduce/remove those who enter outside the legal process, something like where were were before the recent change, plus border walls, and more ICE).

Likely 3) above is where the majority of people land, but it has the nasty problem that it seems arbitrary who gets deported and who does not

But the idea of the US "nation-building" in other countries? I'm not sure that will be well received either. Seems there might be some cultural (culture=="How we do things around here") issues as well, and not just remnants of US involvement in other countries. For example, in what way, other than sending an awful lot of US manufacturing jobs to across the border, did the US cause the terrible corruption in the police force in Mexico (note: I don't know for a fact it is corrupt, but from what I read, it seems to be a true statement). And, why don't we have the same issue here?

[podfish]

It is this country's bloody meddling in Central America that has created the problems that the refugees seeking asylum are fleeing.

there are other options than bloody meddling. And it's not all about us. Those countries are perfectly capable of creating home-grown problems.

[podfish]

The current only alternative to detainment is Catch and Release

oh, god, don't adopt their phrasing of the issues. Read some Orwell.

[spam1]

oh, god, don't adopt their phrasing of the issues. Read some Orwell.

In fact I was quoting exactly from the Washington Post story today. (WaPo is not normally considered in the bag for Trump). So you don't like "catch and release"; maybe "cite and hope". Point is, the only choices are arrest or release and hope they return. Many (most for under 18, less than 1 in 10) return for their hearings. Which is back to #2, very porous border. Orwell (I actually read it before 1984) cited cases where the terms were the opposite (war is peace), but at least catch and release include the two key actions in the correct order. Just calling a diamond and diamond.

[spam1]

Please, spammy, don't plead naivety and attempt to put me in a false position. Neither zero tolerance nor completely open borders. It is pointless for you to keep asking for an answer to a disingenuous question.

I don't see where I plead naivety, I'm asking what IS your position. You throw a lot of stones, maybe take a few build a something instead. It seems you -wish- there was a solution, but in fact there likely is not any solution without consequences.

So how is it disingenuous to as whether A) you think there should be open borders (as 1in 5 Americans do) or you think there should be some limit or control. If there is control, what do you do when it is violated? And, is the only choice (which I personally think is the case) to maintain a policy of somewhat secure borders with somewhat lax enforcement against individuals and strong enforcement against employers.

And what is my reason for suggesting control? without it we are in an unsustainable position as I don't think CA or US for that matter, can absorb the number of people who would want to come here, without our country becoming as unstable and undesirable as the places they live. The US did not make China, or India, or even Venezuela the way it is. The people who lived there did (very interesting to read about the cultural revolution...now that was an inhumane situation).

[Damage]

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download

According to the DOJ’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), the office that handles all immigration cases, a significant number of illegal immigrants who are released from custody never show up for their court hearings. Statistics from 2016 (PDF) show that “non-detained aliens,” which include those who were never detained and those who were released on bond or their own recognizance, failed to show up for court hearings in 39 percent of completed immigration cases—a 110 percent increase compared to 2012.

Since 2014, many of the families arriving from Central America have tried to claim asylum, saying they are fleeing violent gangs and dangerous conditions in their home countries. These asylum cases are a subset of the total number of cases ruled in absentia, and the most recent EOIR data available show a massive increase in the number of removal orders for asylum seekers issued in absentia—that is, cases where a migrant crossed the border illegally, applied for asylum, failed to show up at court, and was ordered removed in absentia. Note the sharp increase in 2017 compared to previous years, and the total for just the first three months of this year:

Of the nearly 100,000 parents and children who have sought asylum since 2014, court records show that immigration judges have issued rulings in 32,500 cases. About 70 percent of those were in absentia deportation orders.

good stuff from WFB

[podfish]

In fact I was quoting exactly from the Washington Post story today. (WaPo is not normally considered in the bag for Trump). So you don't like "catch and release"; maybe "cite and hope". Point is, the only choices are arrest or release and hope they return. Many (most for under 18, less than 1 in 10) return for their hearings. Which is back to #2, very porous border. Orwell (I actually read it before 1984) cited cases where the terms were the opposite (war is peace), but at least catch and release include the two key actions in the correct order. Just calling a diamond and diamond.

looks like that's my theme on this thread. It's not "only (two) choices" - it almost never is, on any issue. The way this issue is framed has a lot to do with it, thus my complaint on language choices.

If you want to go full dichotomy, sure, let everyone in and have one big open world, or go the other extreme and track everyone on our side of the border, no matter what it takes to do so. That way, we can toss the ones who don't belong out.

But it's not that simple, it's not at all simple, in fact it's one of the most complex social contract issues there is. A big part of it is that it's about "them". There are thousands of little issues in our society that we deal with by applying a mix of enforcement, regulation, benign neglect and maybe a little corruption. Look at building codes, for example, if you're bored with my traffic-law analogy. Or how we deal with homelessness.

So by that last, you can tell I'm not saying that all's good, it's a solved problem. It's clearly not. But the reduction to extremes is unhelpful. We aren't actually dealing with a tidal wave of immigrants, and the MS13 or whatever Trump's favorite boogieman is called isn't such an existential threat that we need to treat everyone we don't know as a potential member. It might be worth looking at a system where people applying for asylum don't get sent to a Manzanar equivalent, but aren't allowed to quietly vanish into the hinterlands, to address just one of the dozens of aspects of this. It might be worth pursuing ideas that would empower those fleeing to instead remain and be safer where they now live, meddling in a helpful, rather than bloody, way. It might be worth integrating the need for the kind of workforce that ag and other businesses have developed, filled by immigrants, with the need of the native (in the literal sense, born here) population for employment or at least for a place in the economy. "Immigration", fun as it is for politicians to have as a club, isn't really an issue you can deal with in isolation.

[rossmen]

Open the borders. This action is inevitable anyway. The sooner we do it, the better chance of surviving the worldwide refugee tsunami. We need to practice, get ahead of rapid changes wrought by climate change initiating economic, political, social and biotic collapse. The world we know and want to protect is unsustainable and will be ending soon.

[podfish]

Open the borders. ....

interesting. My first reaction is that the idea of open borders is pretty silly. But following the idea - that would mean that people from outside the country can move around just as easily as people from Alabama or Texas, for example. The barriers we put up against being overrun by Texans are mostly economic, and they seem to do a good job of keeping their numbers manageable. In fact, without formal barriers you can look around our county and not really see too much demographic diversity. So maybe you're right...

[occihoff]

You sound so, so logical, Spam1. But isn't there another question that needs to be thrown into the mix in order to present a slightly more complete view of reality? Why are all these people driven to take such desperate measures to flee their homeland to seek refuge in the United States, a country that doesn't want them, that seems to despise them, that throws them in jail, and will probably end up kicking them out and sending them back to wherever they came from?