• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Uh...what the F**K is going on with border patrol?

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
I was following you up till here.

It's not an empathy issue. I literally haven't seen an argument that says living in the U.S.A is a human right.
Saying the USA is responsible for South America's issues should be a stronger argument they shouldn't live there no? Why aren't they going to Russia instead, since the USSR was just as big of a player?

USSR is not much of an improvement, not to mention the vast ocean is a lot more difficult to get to than passing several land borders to get to U.S.

I do disagree though, this is an empathy issue with many people having no understanding of what desperation people have for them to decide to cross multiple countries and a dessert to get to another country they believe to be better. You do not get illegal immigration at these levels without there being a reason and the same people yelling off the rooftops about illegal immigration are the same ones keeping us from making a more streamlined and efficient legal immigration process.

U.S is directly responsible for it by the way, with them doing everything they can to keep communism out of every country they could, overthrowing multiple governments if they showed even signs of going communist. It also isn't just the Cold War as U.S War on Drugs and gun trafficking is also a major reason why those countries are in the shit.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
^ this guy gets its.

The entire crux of the issue is that when they cross the border with the child the parents now immediately go to jail and eventually deported. Meanwhile the child is shuffled into our failing and underfunded foster care system.

The immigration office then argues and literally did so before Congress that it’s not their legal responsibility to track where these children end up which is technicall true. Thus when it comes time to deport the parents, immigration has no idea where the kids are to even return the children because theirs no accountability.

In case you don’t understand, crossing the border is a misdemeanor the first time. Even with our existing laws it’s considered a minor infraction. At no point should a punishment be to seperate a child from their parent potentially forever.

To recap there is no means or system to track or reunite families in such a way. Purposely doing so is beyond cruel. I understand that there can be administrative slip ups but this is also why you don’t turn yahoo comments into US policy.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
That is in a nutshell the point of this thread. Personally I am against that type of inhumane treatment and massive government overreach. Yes we must have borders, it cannot be a free for all and yes law and order should be respected but this is something that goes way too far in my opinion.

I am going to point out that this isn't true, closed borders to the extent we have now is not actually necessary. Not economically and not socially is borders necessary to keep a nation.

I agree with the rest of your post.
 

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,121
18,229
1,335
Brampton, Ontario
USSR is not much of an improvement, not to mention the vast ocean is a lot more difficult to get to than passing several land borders to get to U.S.
That's not America's problem. Ironically, it was for the very same reasons they did try to limit the influence of communism since Russia today is a result of it. And like I said, why are they moving to a country where the U.S is viewed as the "bad guy"? That's an immediate culture conflict at play if you're willing to blame them, but then force the two into living with each other.
 
Last edited:

John Day

Member
Jan 12, 2018
1,635
1,596
600
39
San Juan, PR
Saw a news report of 2 women who were kept in a parking lot in fucking Montana because they were speaking spanish to each other. A lone border patrol heard them and kept them there while waiting while he checked their id’s. Both of them american citizens.

Yes yes, keep borders safe, but fuck that attitude.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
That's not America's problem. Ironically, it was for the very same reasons they did try to limit the influence of communism since Russia today is a result of it. And like I said, why are they moving to a country where the U.S is viewed as the "bad guy"? That's an immediate culture conflict at play if you're willing to blame them, but then force the two into living with each other.

This isn't how it works.. That is like asking why would anyone from a country that was colonized/ravaged by Europe and U.S would want to go there now. Recognizing that we are largely responsible for their woes does not mean they should ignore the fact that getting here would provide an immensely better life for them/their children.

I feel like you are being intellectually dishonest with this statement used multiple times by you.
 

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
3,130
6,747
715
This isn't how it works.. That is like asking why would anyone from a country that was colonized/ravaged by Europe and U.S would want to go there now. Recognizing that we are largely responsible for their woes does not mean they should ignore the fact that getting here would provide an immensely better life for them/their children.

I feel like you are being intellectually dishonest with this statement used multiple times by you.

Thats not a fact though.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
Thats not a fact though.

If you read that in the most strict way, true that isn't fact.. More like "the fact getting here would provide a much better chance of having a better life for them/their children" is more accurate.

I mean, you do realize the state of the countries they are leaving behind, right?
 

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,121
18,229
1,335
Brampton, Ontario
This isn't how it works.. That is like asking why would anyone from a country that was colonized/ravaged by Europe and U.S would want to go there now. Recognizing that we are largely responsible for their woes does not mean they should ignore the fact that getting here would provide an immensely better life for them/their children.

I feel like you are being intellectually dishonest with this statement used multiple times by you.
When it's done legally and they respect the current culture, then sure.

But your argument is that South Americans have a right to illegally reside in the USA on top of the established fact bad blood exists between the two nations but America is the one that has to bend the knee for them.

That's not empathy or an intellectually sound argument. I would also throw in that the US already provides foreign aid around the world. So again, how can America be heartless for respecting its borders and sponsoring foreign aid, but the likes of Russia, Japan, Mexico can enforce theirs and ignore the migrant crisis?
 
Last edited:

Dice

Member
Jun 6, 2004
35,533
1,254
2,015
I actually find national claims to land ownership repugnant and think that anyone should be able to freely move anywhere on earth because all of our nations are imaginary and no one chose to be born in any given place. Residence should not be restricted but relationship regulated through legal allowances in mutual agreements within geographic bounds of operations. This is also the only sane/realistic approach to managing humanity in view of the historical precedent of mass migrations (due to natural disaster, war, famine, climate change, etc) and the current unprecedented global population. Our (all nations on earth) systems simply have to be more flexible.
 

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,121
18,229
1,335
Brampton, Ontario
I actually find national claims to land ownership repugnant and think that anyone should be able to freely move anywhere on earth because all of our nations are imaginary and no one chose to be born in any given place.
Now explain this concept to dictators. Without borders, the likes of Putin could plant their military anywhere and claim ownership of earth.

While I agree and sympathize that no one chooses to be born at a specific geographic boundary, it turns into a zero sum game by granting unlimited movement rights that one group of people may oppose on economic or ideological grounds when another group squats on their territory.

You're also creating a brain drain and dooming future innocent people if the answer to all regional problems is to leave. Imagine for a second all the doctors decided to leave a war zone. Now you have civilians completely stranded with no medical services in sight.
 
Last edited:

Dice

Member
Jun 6, 2004
35,533
1,254
2,015
Now explain this concept to dictators. Without borders, the likes of Putin could plant their military anywhere and claim ownership of earth.
His forces would be countered by any other forces on earth. Without claim to persons by way of birthplace, power of compulsion to become a dictator would also be weakened.

While I agree and sympathize that no one chooses to be born at a specific geographic boundary, it turns into a zero sum game by granting unlimited movement rights that one group of people may oppose on economic or ideological grounds when another group squats on their territory.
There is no reason to "oppose" if relationship is on voluntary basis according to which agreements of partnership you prefer to affiliate with. Just like we go to different employers and insurance agencies, you could choose which nation partnership you prefer, and choose whether you like to remain more central to their general bounds of operations, or closer to areas of operations that tend to interact with others more. Are you familiar with how Native American nations worked with each other? With modern technology, we can get even more flexible than that.

But I don't want to start a huge tangent discussion in this thread. I'm just saying that I think our present concept of nations is both unjust and unrealistic as a vision for the future.
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,732
5,399
760
Finland
I actually find national claims to land ownership repugnant and think that anyone should be able to freely move anywhere on earth because all of our nations are imaginary and no one chose to be born in any given place.

Given how people are willing to start up gangs and join into gangs inside nations, I think that if we didn't have nations we would have gangs of many types claiming their own territories.

Not all people want to be peaceful world explorers. I think the concept of nations is the most peaceful evolution of the human will to create groups, join in groups, to be in control and set up boundaries.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
When it's done legally and they respect the current culture, then sure.

But your argument is that South Americans have a right to illegally reside in the USA on top of the established fact bad blood exists between the two nations but America is the one that has to bend the knee for them.

That's not empathy or an intellectually sound argument. I would also throw in that the US already provides foreign aid around the world. So again, how can America be heartless for respecting its borders and sponsoring foreign aid, but the likes of Russia, Japan, Mexico can enforce theirs and ignore the migrant crisis?

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said they have "a right to illegally reside in USA". I said people lack basic empathy and understanding of this current issue. My point is that we are the ones that wrecked the area, they do not have a "right" to come here, but it is understandable why they are coming here and why many are forced to do so illegally. I talked about the catch 22 that reduces the incentive to wait out an application to come here legally. The only other thing is that people make them a boogeyman, as if they are cause of massive social and economic woes in U.S which they aren't.

Foreign aide is nice and I am well aware U.S gives that to many countries around the world, but just because one does one nice thing, does not mean all other negatives get washed away.

Also again to that last part, do not put words into my mouth, I have not spoken at all about Japan, Mexico, or Russia and their immigration/refugee policies. Like who are you even responding to? lol.


Obama Admin Losing Track of Illegal Immigrant Children in US

Somehow, I don't recall the media OUTRAGE over this. I wonder why that is...

This has been happening for decades, and they know it. You're being played like a fiddle.

You are cherrypicking here... The thread is about purposely taking children from those they are accompanied with and then losing many of them.

Obama's crisis was a lot different, with most of those children having been unaccompanied from the get-go. Guess what, there was a lot of news and attention regarding this issue, the problem is that Republicans and those that hated Obama made it about him allowing illegals in and only that. Do you think they care illegal immigrant children getting lost in the system?
 
Last edited:

AvenueWinning

Member
Jun 14, 2017
1,218
775
520
Good point, why do I never see this brought up ever? I don't want the standard of living decreasing, I don't want the entire country to be NYC/SF. Immigration should be gated. Overpop, pollution and crime are already a gigantic fucking problem in cities and an influx of people into those areas will undoubtedly make those problems way worse.

As for the deterrent, I doubt very seriously the people who are future illegal immigrants have means to find out about this stuff. They act with utter disregard for the country and I doubt they are taking time to research the legality of what they're doing.


There were a shit ton of (free) immigrants who came through the ports of NOLA. For jazz, you have them to thank.
Wasn’t taught in school that’s for sure.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
Good point, why do I never see this brought up ever? I don't want the standard of living decreasing, I don't want the entire country to be NYC/SF. Immigration should be gated. Overpop, pollution and crime are already a gigantic fucking problem in cities and an influx of people into those areas will undoubtedly make those problems way worse.

As for the deterrent, I doubt very seriously the people who are future illegal immigrants have means to find out about this stuff. They act with utter disregard for the country and I doubt they are taking time to research the legality of what they're doing.

Because this isn't even true.. Crime has been on a decrease in majority of cities, cities are also not "overpopulated" either and decreasing immigration will only slow, not stop influx of people moving to cities as they have most of the jobs and amenities people desire.

The issue of U.S cities is mostly self-inflicted, NYC and SF are prime examples of locals sabotaging any solutions to the problems that plague the city because of self-interest from zoning to public transportation but this is something for a different topic.

To your other BS... illegally crossing the border is not akin to fucking murder, rape, and other crimes. "Benefit of the doubt because they are willing to compromise" like, do you ever read and think about this and understand human nature?

Wasn’t taught in school that’s for sure.

Its complex and majority came through and sought out the North. It wouldn't be taught in basic education classes unless one specifically goes for advanced classes or chooses that specific class.
 
Last edited:

AvenueWinning

Member
Jun 14, 2017
1,218
775
520
Because this isn't even true.. Crime has been on a decrease in majority of cities, cities are also not "overpopulated" either and decreasing immigration will only slow, not stop influx of people moving to cities as they have most of the jobs and amenities people desire.

The issue of U.S cities is mostly self-inflicted, NYC and SF are prime examples of locals sabotaging any solutions to the problems that plague the city because of self-interest from zoning to public transportation but this is something for a different topic.

To your other BS... illegally crossing the border is not akin to fucking murder, rape, and other crimes. "Benefit of the doubt because they are willing to compromise" like, do you ever read and think about this and understand human nature?



Its complex and majority came through and sought out the North. It wouldn't be taught in basic education classes unless one specifically goes for advanced classes or chooses that specific class.
Do you have any articles or videos about it by any chance?
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
Do you have any articles or videos about it by any chance?

On which subject?

They're linked. An influx of low income or completely unpaid families will lead to crime. Especially if the economy isn't good to them, which it isn't. Overpopulation contributes to crime. You have too much faith in people if you trust the lot of new yorkers to be on their best behavior when it can be lost in the sauce so easily. It's practically a cultural understanding that you have to watch your shit on the train because one of the 50 people that you encounter on your daily commute is gonna try to take your stuff, and that's just a foreground conclusion of using public transportation.

I do hope you are thinking of this in relative terms. Its not that one of the 50 people that you encounter on your daily commute is gonna try to take your stuff... its that one of the 50 people that you encounter on your daily commute MIGHT try to take your stuff. Also a lot of this is ingrained in New Yorkers because of how bad crime rates were in the past especially the 1970s-1980s. I should know, I am from Brooklyn.

It is not about putting faith in people as much as thinking about it on a scale, chances for this, chances for that, how many will steal, how many will assault, etc.
 
Last edited:

John Day

Member
Jan 12, 2018
1,635
1,596
600
39
San Juan, PR
Think what you want, but taking a child and putting him up to a department that doesn’t even fucking register where such child ends up is... fucked up. Why not deport both the parent and the child back home, for example?
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,848
3,457
760
Don't put words in my mouth, I never said they have "a right to illegally reside in USA". I said people lack basic empathy and understanding of this current issue. My point is that we are the ones that wrecked the area, they do not have a "right" to come here, but it is understandable why they are coming here and why many are forced to do so illegally. I talked about the catch 22 that reduces the incentive to wait out an application to come here legally. The only other thing is that people make them a boogeyman, as if they are cause of massive social and economic woes in U.S which they aren't.

Foreign aide is nice and I am well aware U.S gives that to many countries around the world, but just because one does one nice thing, does not mean all other negatives get washed away.

Also again to that last part, do not put words into my mouth, I have not spoken at all about Japan, Mexico, or Russia and their immigration/refugee policies. Like who are you even responding to? lol.




You are cherrypicking here... The thread is about purposely taking children from those they are accompanied with and then losing many of them.

Obama's crisis was a lot different, with most of those children having been unaccompanied from the get-go. Guess what, there was a lot of news and attention regarding this issue, the problem is that Republicans and those that hated Obama made it about him allowing illegals in and only that. Do you think they care illegal immigrant children getting lost in the system?

OK fine it's true we should all have empathy and be understanding but can u tell me just how much illegal immigration is acceptable to u? Just how many refugees should America take in to atone for its past crimes? And hopefuly if your answer is not "all of them", can you explain how exactly u came up with those numbers? And how will they be enforced?
 
Last edited:
Jan 10, 2018
690
207
0
Yeah here in Texas its been nuts they're pulling over every Hispanic they see. I been in the car a few times. And its literally no other reason than checking papers

Haven't seen it in houston or San Antonio, but any small town in between.

Got one friend being deported over a traffic ticket though I hear it might a been a hit and run from his cousin.

Had a friend in Jr high and high school turned into a criminal and they deported him to Jordan in 2004 after 2 year prison stay he's been there since. His entire family is in Texas
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
OK fine it's true we should all have empathy and be understanding but can u tell me just how much illegal immigration is acceptable to u? Just how many refugees should America take in to atone for its past crimes? And hopefuly if your answer is not "all of them", can you explain how exactly u came up with those numbers? And how will they be enforced?

Your wording makes it sound like I think we should just allow all illegal immigrants in until we reach a quota which isn't what I am saying. We can only deal with the issues we already have.

Stop demonizing illegal immigrants and put in more money to deal with processing and deporting those that are caught more properly and humanely
Abolish ICE or give it another mission, many of the missions ICE has is already done by other departments.
Amnesty and full on citizenship for those already here
Fix the immigration system that makes it take so long to become a citizen
U.S should probably go for an open border with Canada and Mexico, akin to Europe to allow freedom of movement (this is something I believe will happen eventually).

Also refugees are not the same as illegal immigrants, but U.S as a nation can take in more than it currently does.

I can't throw up numbers on refugees and immigration because it should have a lot of research to determine the threshold. Currently, U.S is no where near that threshold and as stated before, has a lot of economic incentives for increasing it.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
10,075
21,410
1,010
Think what you want, but taking a child and putting him up to a department that doesn’t even fucking register where such child ends up is... fucked up. Why not deport both the parent and the child back home, for example?
They separate them on purpose to "send a message."
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,848
3,457
760
U.S should probably go for an open border with Canada and Mexico, akin to Europe to allow freedom of movement (this is something I believe will happen eventually).

I can't throw up numbers on refugees and immigration because it should have a lot of research to determine the threshold. Currently, U.S is no where near that threshold and as stated before, has a lot of economic incentives for increasing it.

And you wonder why your team keeps losing elections.....ask Canada how they are enjoying their flood of illegal immigrants.
 
Last edited:

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
3,732
3,975
725
You are cherrypicking here... The thread is about purposely taking children from those they are accompanied with and then losing many of them.

Obama's crisis was a lot different, with most of those children having been unaccompanied from the get-go. Guess what, there was a lot of news and attention regarding this issue, the problem is that Republicans and those that hated Obama made it about him allowing illegals in and only that. Do you think they care illegal immigrant children getting lost in the system?

Do you think the Democrats who tweeted this image when they believed it was Trump and then silently took it down when they found out it was taken under Obama care about the kids?

Oh, and these 1,500 kids? It turns out they were unaccompanied as well.

More #FakeNews

the full NYT article
 
Last edited:

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
Better than what happens to illegals in Mexico who come from south of their border...
 

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
811
302
0
The point of the “1500 kids” story isn’t to say that this is Donald’s fault. It’s to say that DHHS sucks at tracking these kids. Therefore turning them over to DHHS is a bad idea because they’ll loose track of them. Then you effectively separated a family (possibly putting the child in the hands of a trafficker) for a misdemeanor.
 

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
3,732
3,975
725
The point of the “1500 kids” story isn’t to say that this is Donald’s fault. It’s to say that DHHS sucks at tracking these kids. Therefore turning them over to DHHS is a bad idea because they’ll loose track of them. Then you effectively separated a family (possibly putting the child in the hands of a trafficker) for a misdemeanor.

You should read the full NYT article which I linked. There is no actual evidence that there are 1500 lost kids. Regardless:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31171/celebrities-trumps-immigration-policies-just-paul-bois

There are really two issues. First, there’s the status of unaccompanied minors entering the United States. Those minors must be remanded to foster parents, shelters or sponsors within 20 days rather than held indefinitely in detention facilities. That settlement, according to FactCheck.org, was extended to accompanied children as well. ... Democrats and Leftist judges (particularly on the Ninth Circuit) have suggested that children cannot be detained at all, which means that if the American government wishes to detain parents, they must separate the families. Trump’s only other choice would be not to prosecute illegal immigration at all. Which means that any legislative fix would include an express provision stating that children should be kept with their parents in detention – or at least that parents should be given the option of keeping their children with them in detention.
 
Last edited:

Sàmban

Banned
Feb 21, 2014
811
302
0
You should read the full NYT article which I linked. There is no actual evidence that there are 1500 lost kids. Regardless:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31171/celebrities-trumps-immigration-policies-just-paul-bois
What do you mean there is no evidence? There's a sworn testimony fro DHHS. It's linked in the NYT article which you're claiming I didn't read. Did you read it?

Or perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Trump lost these children. I'm saying DHHS lost track of them which is a separate issue. I am then claiming that because DHHS lost them, they are not well equipped to handle the children turned over by ICE/border patrol in this deterrent policy. This problem seems much more systemic and due to inefficiencies than any one party.
 
Last edited:

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
3,130
6,747
715
he was probably referring to this

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees refugee resettlement, began making calls last year to determine what had happened to 7,635 children the government had helped place between last October and the end of the year.

From these calls, officials learned that 6,075 children remained with their sponsors. Twenty-eight had run away, five had been removed from the United States and 52 had relocated to live with a nonsponsor. The rest were unaccounted for, giving rise to the 1,475 number. It is possible that some of the adult sponsors simply chose not to respond to the agency.
 

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
3,732
3,975
725
and also this

On Monday evening, Eric Hargan, the deputy secretary for Health and Human Services, expressed frustration at the use of the term “lost” to refer to the 1,475 unaccounted-for children. In a statement, he said that the department’s office of refugee resettlement began voluntarily making the calls as a 30-day follow-up to make sure that the children and their sponsors did not require additional services. Those calls, which the office does not view as required, Mr. Hargan said, are now “being used to confuse and spread misinformation.”

In many cases, the statement said, sponsors cannot be reached because “they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities.”
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395

Not sure how this changes much, since the policy is still literally "rip them from their families". The only thing that changed is they aren't lost after being taken, but it still has the question of what is done with them while the parents are away.

Also I knew about this correction long before you responded to me. I also knew that "lost" could also just mean those who watch the children are just not responding to updates.
 

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
3,130
6,747
715
so..


NYT Correction:

This article has been updated to clarify that the Trump administration’s new policy is to prosecute all undocumented border crossers and that the result is to separate parents from children; the policy’s explicit purpose is not to separate undocumented parents and children.


USAToday Correction:

Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this column mischaracterized the legal status of 1,475 undocumented migrant children who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without their parents. Those children were placed in the custody of sponsors screened by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. They are no longer in federal custody.


WaPo:

NOTE: This article has been updated to clarify that the Trump administration’s new policy is to prosecute all undocumented border crossers and that the result is to separate parents from children; the policy’s explicit purpose is not to separate undocumented parents and children.

Seattle Times Correction:

NOTE: Correction: A previous version of this post said that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen had defended the Trump administration policy of detaining undocumented immigrants and separating them from their children as being “for the purpose of deterrence.” Nielsen in fact had testified at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that DHS had not been directed to enact the policy as a means of deterrence. The post has been updated.


Some people in this thread arent lookin too hot
 

Dad.

Member
Sep 22, 2016
75
8
160
I've been following a few stories on twitter and border prosecutions of immigrants are turning into a giant clusterfuck. It seems like pretty much everyone is being dehumanized and treated like a criminal and quite a few suffering people seeking asylum are being caught in the crossfire. Families are being split up and the parents don't know what the fuck is going on with their children.

For example, this man got separated from his SICK 18 MONTH OLD CHILD FOR 3 MONTHS AND THEN SENT HOME ALONE...WHAT THE FUCK
He had mortgaged his land in Guatemala to fund his sick toddler’s hospital stay, and needed to work in the United States to pay off the loan. Instead agents imprisoned the 28-year-old in July for coming back into the country after having been deported, a felony. They placed the toddler in a federal shelter, though where, Pastor didn’t know. Three months later, in October, the father was deported — alone. His child, he said agents told him, was “somewhere in Texas.” “I cried. I begged,” he said. “No one could tell me anything.”
You really have to read the whole thing. It is just...unbelievably fucked up.

We're also now having some illegal immigrants wear yellow armbands for identification. Because that doesn't have disturbing historical precedents.

Keep in mind that it was reported last month that HHS lost track of 1500 immigrant children and some of them ended up in the hands of child traffickers. Who knows what will happen to these children separated from their parents?

This has the potential to turn into a disaster. I haven't been watching the news lately so I don't know if it is being covered.

EDIT: to clarify, these families are not being torn apart to protect the children from irresponsible parents. This is being done ON PURPOSE as punishment to serve as a deterrent.

Here is John Kelly calling the practice a “necessary evil” that hopefully won’t be practiced for too long.
This is perhaps intentional, to make people suffer more.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
so..


NYT Correction:

This article has been updated to clarify that the Trump administration’s new policy is to prosecute all undocumented border crossers and that the result is to separate parents from children; the policy’s explicit purpose is not to separate undocumented parents and children.


USAToday Correction:

Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this column mischaracterized the legal status of 1,475 undocumented migrant children who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without their parents. Those children were placed in the custody of sponsors screened by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. They are no longer in federal custody.


WaPo:

NOTE: This article has been updated to clarify that the Trump administration’s new policy is to prosecute all undocumented border crossers and that the result is to separate parents from children; the policy’s explicit purpose is not to separate undocumented parents and children.

Seattle Times Correction:

NOTE: Correction: A previous version of this post said that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen had defended the Trump administration policy of detaining undocumented immigrants and separating them from their children as being “for the purpose of deterrence.” Nielsen in fact had testified at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that DHS had not been directed to enact the policy as a means of deterrence. The post has been updated.


Some people in this thread arent lookin too hot

What? No the Nielsen never was the person who said it, it was John Kelly himself.

In the effort to enforce U.S. border laws, "a big name of the game is deterrence," he explained. And separating families "could be a tough deterrent."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...itting-migrant-families-laws-trump/602982002/
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
I actually find national claims to land ownership repugnant and think that anyone should be able to freely move anywhere on earth because all of our nations are imaginary and no one chose to be born in any given place. Residence should not be restricted but relationship regulated through legal allowances in mutual agreements within geographic bounds of operations. This is also the only sane/realistic approach to managing humanity in view of the historical precedent of mass migrations (due to natural disaster, war, famine, climate change, etc) and the current unprecedented global population. Our (all nations on earth) systems simply have to be more flexible.
This would work in a world where we don't kill each other over small cultural things and there wasn't a "I get mine so fuck you" mentality. Maybe.
 

ar0s

Member
Feb 21, 2018
391
155
270
Illegally crossing into another country to work illegally and therefore live as a criminal is not the actions of a responsible parent. If you get deported and lose your child you honestly have nothing to cry about. These measures don't go anywhere near far enough.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
Illegally crossing into another country to work illegally and therefore live as a criminal is not the actions of a responsible parent. If you get deported and lose your child you honestly have nothing to cry about. These measures don't go anywhere near far enough.

In the US you do not lose your child forever and you win back custody eventually. That's the point. The government hasn't keep track of the children and the children are potentially lost forever.
This isn't a case of, "that's what you get" because the punishment for this crime is a misdemeanor and not subject to having your child taken away from you forever.
 

Dontero

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
3,046
3,373
650
It's scary how many are arguing that losing children and in some cases the kids being trafficked are okay end results for breaking a law.

"Asylum seekers" who crossed border illegally. Their "asylum seeker" status doesn't work like Asylum seeker who contacted embassy first.


U.S is directly responsible for it by the way, with them doing everything they can to keep communism out of every country they could, overthrowing multiple governments if they showed even signs of going communist. It also isn't just the Cold War as U.S War on Drugs and gun trafficking is also a major reason why those countries are in the shit.

While i agree about US interventions you can't blame US on everything. For example you can't blame cartels on US just because US wants cocaine. This problem is more connected to corrupted culture than US.

For example if some would hang 4 kids under the bridge in Poland town, next day you would have whole city searching for those people who did that and by second day unless police wouldn't get to them first they would be themselves hanged.
In mexico if something like this happens no one bats an eye outside of family. Shit as usual.

Cartels operate because they are born from people. They spread their influence because they are from people.
Finally Cartels reach critical factor and unless you clean up house with heavy hand you won't have feature without Cartels.
People know this and yet they do nothing. Government knows this and yet it doesn't do anything.

So the guilty isn't US but those nations.


Again, this is also happening to asylum seekers (I.e. people showing up to authorities asking for help), not just people crossing illegally. Read the OP please.

.
So you agree losing one's child forever is fair punishment for crossing the border?

And how can you prove someone isn't child trafficker if he doesn't have papers ? You do realize that people smuggle children across border to be either illegaly adopted, sold for organs or straight up go to brothels ?

Also parents know crossing border is illegal. While taking kid from parent isn't "nice" parent fully knew what they were signing up on when they tried to cross border. They could leave kid or just plainly don't go. But they did and now you want to look for excuse to blame your own goverment for not being nice for illegal immigrants and system problems in law with issues that slip past those.
 
Aug 18, 2016
3,440
661
560
38
Michigan
www.geeksundergrace.com
You know, I like you @ssolitare, you're a great countervoice at this forum (you really are), but I know you know better than to make statements that require a rather complex causal connection or a really weak causal connection. A simple "This is what being tough on the border gives us. Thanks Trump.", would be far more effective and shut down your opposition more effectively. Anyways, to respond more directly, let's see what the FBI investigation finds out and what's done, and besides that there's the overall arching subject of body cams for police officers and for border patrol agents (though I'm unsure on the cross-country legality of surveillance, though I guess satellites and distance to the actual border makes that irrelevant?)

I don't really see the problem with what he said.

All he did was explicitly place and identity on the immigrants rather than just call them immigrants. I've noticed references to Ellis Island in this thread. If we shift the conversation to Ellis Island, then we're talking about immigrants from Europe, not from Mexico. Not even the refugees war-torn countries in Africa.
To say immigrants automatically means other. To remind everyone that the people we are talking about are brown is not out out of bounds.
 

RokkanStoned

Member
Jan 14, 2018
2,587
3,073
635
Norway
I don't really see the problem with what he said.

All he did was explicitly place and identity on the immigrants rather than just call them immigrants. I've noticed references to Ellis Island in this thread. If we shift the conversation to Ellis Island, then we're talking about immigrants from Europe, not from Mexico. Not even the refugees war-torn countries in Africa.
To say immigrants automatically means other. To remind everyone that the people we are talking about are brown is not out out of bounds.

Except he essentially said "Trump is doing a number", then linking what someone who's not Trump has done. If you want someone to treat your comments seriously, you don't try to misrepresent something for rhetorical purposes, alluding to that Trump is somehow responsible for actions of individual border agents. I'm actually even more surprised that you responded to it now and didn't see that obvious ridiculousness, so long after it was posted. Then you're ending it in a verbiage about something completely unrelated and ignoring the racial undertones he used.
I even suggested a better response that would get across the same point without looking like a fool.
 
Aug 18, 2016
3,440
661
560
38
Michigan
www.geeksundergrace.com
Except he essentially said "Trump is doing a number", then linking what someone who's not Trump has done. If you want someone to treat your comments seriously, you don't try to misrepresent something for rhetorical purposes, alluding to that Trump is somehow responsible for actions of individual border agents. I'm actually even more surprised that you responded to it now and didn't see that obvious ridiculousness, so long after it was posted. Then you're ending it in a verbiage about something completely unrelated and ignoring the racial undertones he used.
I even suggested a better response that would get across the same point without looking like a fool.

This here is the nuance.

I think we tend to look at POTUS even when municipal-level things happen. The Obama Beer Summit is one such example.

That said, when it comes to border control, which is a federal rather than state-level thing (for lack of better word), then I don't think it unfair to look at the Oval Office. After all, much of this controversy was born from executive order.
 
Mar 18, 2018
4,241
4,986
570
This here is the nuance.

I think we tend to look at POTUS even when municipal-level things happen. The Obama Beer Summit is one such example.

That said, when it comes to border control, which is a federal rather than state-level thing (for lack of better word), then I don't think it unfair to look at the Oval Office. After all, much of this controversy was born from executive order.

No. Much of this controversy was done over years and years of law building up, inaction, and foreign policy by many different POTUS and many diffent congresses. What we are seeing is a domino effect.