View Poll Results: Should children be separated from adults in detention facilities?

Voters
287. This poll is closed
  • Yes

    94 32.75%
  • No

    193 67.25%
Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ...
27
35
36
37
  1. #721
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Whatever helps you reconcile the truth that Trump's little gamble had him eating crow...
    I'm not denying that. I'm just telling you the truth of what I posted and quoted which you seemed to have an issue with for some dumbass reason as if you can't stand to read the truth if it doesn't fit your delusion no matter what the subject was just because it had the word Trump in the sentence.

  2. #722
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475

  3. #723
    Quote Originally Posted by quras View Post
    You cannot claim asylum after breaking a countries immigration laws. Had they walked to an embassy or the gate and asked for asylum there would be an entirely different set of rules in play. That does not happen for the majority of the illegals because they try to circumvent the laws and enter illegally first. When they are then caught, they claim asylum. That doesn't work after the fact.

    Do you actually know what the asylum laws says? I doubt you do but I'll tell you.

    International law requires that refugees fleeing a country & seeking asylum do so in the very first country they enter, providing that country will not continue to persecute them. In the instances of the Central, South & Latin American refugees, that country would be Mexico, not the US as Mexico is not persecuting them. They are the very definition of illegal immigrants by international law and our own.
    "The facts about asylum
    Asylum seekers are looking for a place of safety

    There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.

    There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach. A European regulation allows a country such as the UK to return an adult asylum seeker to the first European country they reached. This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more asylum seekers than others. Some of the countries through which people travel to get to Europe are not safe places and many have not signed the Refugee Convention, meaning that people who remain there will not get international protection and be able to rebuild their lives.

    It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)"

    https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/po...sylum_-_page_4

    "There are two primary ways in which a person may apply for asylum in the United States: the affirmative process and the defensive process. Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process. Both processes require the asylum seeker to be physically present in the United States.

    • Affirmative Asylum: A person who is not in removal proceedings may affirmatively apply for asylum through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the USCIS asylum officer does not grant the asylum application and the applicant does not have a lawful immigration status, he or she is referred to the immigration court for removal proceedings, where he or she may renew the request for asylum through the defensive process and appear before an immigration judge.
    • Defensive Asylum: A person who is in removal proceedings may apply for asylum defensively by filing the application with an immigration judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the Department of Justice. In other words, asylum is applied for “as a defense against removal from the U.S.” Unlike the criminal court system, EOIR does not provide appointed counsel for individuals in immigration court, even if they are unable to retain an attorney on their own."
    https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states

    They are absolutely separating asylum seeking families: "Most of the adults who cross with children come from violence-ravaged Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador and are seeking asylum in the U.S. Under the new policy, adults will still be able to apply for asylum, but they may be detained while their cases are considered. Immigrants who are prosecuted for crossing the border illegally also will still be able to apply for asylum.

    [...]The government is already facing a lawsuit over the practice of separating parents and children caught at the border. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of an African woman and her young daughter separated after asking for asylum at a border crossing in San Diego, as well as a Brazilian mother and her son who were arrested crossing the border illegally in Texas, also seeking asylum. The civil-rights group last week asked a federal judge in San Diego to block the government from separating such immigrant families. A ruling hasn’t been issued." https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-a....co/R0AmdBkdl5

    "A woman identified as Ms. G said in an April 23 affidavit that she was separated from her blind 6-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son after crossing at Nogales, Arizona, where the family requested asylum. Her children are living in a shelter more than an hour away from where she's being held.

    “I worry about them constantly and I don’t know when I’ll see them,” she said.

    Gelernt has seen cases in which parents are separated from their children even if they cross into the U.S. through an official port of entry, which authorities have said should protect families from being split up.

    A man identified as Mr. U from Kyrgyzstan said in an affidavit he and his 13-year old son were separated when they sought asylum at the San Ysidro Port of entry. Mr. U was held in California; his son was sent to Chicago.

    “All I can remember is how much my son and I were both crying when they took him away,” Mr. U said.

    Several immigrant rights groups and asylum seekers sued DHS and Customs and Border Protection for turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry last year. The suit is pending." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/...arents-n874821

    "Washington D.C. - Today an immigrant rights group and several asylum seekers filed a class action lawsuit against officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in a federal district court in California, challenging the government’s unlawful practice of depriving asylum seekers of access to the U.S. asylum process.

    [...]The lawsuit documents numerous cases in which CBP officers denied asylum seekers at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border the right to seek protection in the United States. This illegal conduct included falsely representing to individuals that asylum is no longer available in the United States, that asylum seekers need permission from the Mexican government to seek asylum, or that asylum seekers must apply at other locations. In some cases, CBP officers threatened and falsely told asylum seekers that if they did not abandon their effort to obtain asylum, they would lose custody of their children."

    https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...outhern-border
    Last edited by Levelfive; 2018-06-21 at 12:08 AM.

  4. #724
    Quote Originally Posted by quras View Post
    Snip
    Look, just because you and I are able to look up all the rules and regulations in regards to seeking Asylum doesn't mean those people seeking it know all of that off the bat. But hey, they should've spent the time preparing to leave their homes and country scouring the internet to make sure they know the proper etiquette and such, right? Riiiight.

    Then you make the assumption the people who're trying to enter the US and leave everything they know and/or love behind in order to get here will just go "Oh, damn, the jig is up. Better head on back" like it's some cartoon caper. Is it futile to fight and hope they might be allowed to stay or might escape? Maybe. But I doubt just giving up there is so easy a thing to do.

    Let me be clear. I know the parents aren't separated from the kids right away. Yes, I know there's the 20 day thing. I also know that when the families are separated, it is done with the express purpose of being cruel bastards in order to deter them from trying again, or for others from trying. And don't forget, with statistics and links mentioned before in this thread, we sure as shit don't really try to track if the kids ever get back with the parents after we hold them for a time and then release them. Again, a really shitty thing to do simply to try to use as a deterrent.

    No sir, you are entirely misled in what it seems you believe.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by quras View Post
    Spoken like something who hates the truth and just puts their fingers in their ears because it doesn't sit well with their delusions. Reality man. Get with it.
    Spoken like someone who doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves and, if you lived in the US, we'd be better off trading you for many of the Asylum seekers.

  5. #725
    Trump and that crazy Nielsen person said a bunch of crap that was just flat out bullshit;

    Trump administration insisted it didn't have a policy of separating children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. It said that it was merely following the law. And it said “Congress alone can fix” the mess.

    It just admitted that all that was nonsense — and that it badly overplayed its hand.

    Virtually everything it said about the policy is tossed aside with this executive action. It's the political equivalent of waving the white flag and the legal equivalent of confessing to making false statements. Rather than letting Congress rebuke it, the White House is rebuking itself and trying to save some face.

  6. #726
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    "The facts about asylum
    Asylum seekers are looking for a place of safety

    There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
    They can but at that point they will be detained to see a judge who will decide their fate. At that point, that is why the children were removed as stated in international law and US.

    There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach.
    A European regulation allows a country such as the UK to return an adult asylum seeker to the first European country they reached. This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more asylum seekers than others. Some of the countries through which people travel to get to Europe are not safe places and many have not signed the Refugee Convention, meaning that people who remain there will not get international protection and be able to rebuild their lives.
    That is not entirely correct on the matter as The European Court of Justice (ECJ), supreme court for the European Union (EU), has ruled that would-be migrants must seek asylum in the first country they reach.

    They should be seeking asylum at the first country but they do not want to be there so they circumvent that or mexico fast tracks them to the US denying them asylum but the law is there. It may not always be enforced but it is there.

    It is recognized in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)"
    While that is correct, so is this:
    "The European Union's top court has ruled that refugees must continue to seek asylum in the first European country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances like the migrant crisis of 2015."

    Now, you can claim Mexico is not a safe place and you'd get no argument from me but the rule is there enforced or not.

    https://cis.org/Cadman/Why-Shouldnt-...-Asylum-Mexico

    Then you have to take into account that the reasons why they claim to leave a county do not apply to the majority of asylum seekers. Poor economy, drugs and gangs do not grant asylum. Are they persecuted under the asylum rules? Either way, while they apply for it, it doesn't in most cases actually work for the reasons they give. They are not being persecuted or have a fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular group or political opinions. So it rarely applies. They also fail to receive refugee status for that same reason.

    It rarely applies for our southern immigrants.

    but yes. We do have first country rules even if rarely used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Moose Fandango View Post
    SNIP...

    Let me be clear. I know the parents aren't separated from the kids right away.
    Then lets not go spouting off hyperbole about how they were ripped from their families if you know the truth. It doesn't do your argument any good.

  7. #727
    Quote Originally Posted by quras View Post
    Then lets not go spouting off hyperbole about how they were ripped from their families if you know the truth. It doesn't do your argument any good.
    Except they still are. It's just not immediately.

  8. #728
    Quote Originally Posted by quras View Post
    They can but at that point they will be detained to see a judge who will decide their fate. At that point, that is why the children were removed as stated in international law and US.


    That is not entirely correct on the matter as The European Court of Justice (ECJ), supreme court for the European Union (EU), has ruled that would-be migrants must seek asylum in the first country they reach.

    They should be seeking asylum at the first country but they do not want to be there so they circumvent that or mexico fast tracks them to the US denying them asylum but the law is there. It may not always be enforced but it is there.



    While that is correct, so is this:
    "The European Union's top court has ruled that refugees must continue to seek asylum in the first European country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances like the migrant crisis of 2015."

    Now, you can claim Mexico is not a safe place and you'd get no argument from me but the rule is there enforced or not.

    https://cis.org/Cadman/Why-Shouldnt-...-Asylum-Mexico

    Then you have to take into account that the reasons why they claim to leave a county do not apply to the majority of asylum seekers. Poor economy, drugs and gangs do not grant asylum. Are they persecuted under the asylum rules? Either way, while they apply for it, it doesn't in most cases actually work for the reasons they give. They are not being persecuted or have a fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular group or political opinions. So it rarely applies. They also fail to receive refugee status for that same reason.

    It rarely applies for our southern immigrants.

    but yes. We do have first country rules even if rarely used.
    Even in the article you linked--from an organization founded in part by this guy: "The CIS is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations that John Tanton helped found.[4][6][7] Tanton is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who opposed immigration on racial grounds, desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics.[8][6][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center...ration_Studies (I checked because I was a little perplexed they refer to themselves as "non-partisan")--the author references "principles" and "international conventions," nothing about US laws or rules or regulations, and given the general tenor, I am certain that he would have, had it applied:

    "The problem is that here in the United States this international principle of demanding that migrants claim asylum or refuge at the first safe country they reach is mostly honored in the breach. Everyone pays lip service to it, but no one, least of all our pusillanimous political or government leaders, really expects America to demand that the international convention be scrupulously adhered to, either by those who are allegedly seeking shelter from harm, or by the countries those migrants use as doormats en route to America as the nation of economic choice."

    I just want to point out again that in the paragraph of yours I linked, out of 10 sentences, 5 of them were wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by quras View Post
    You cannot claim asylum after breaking a countries immigration laws. (Incorrect) Had they walked to an embassy or the gate and asked for asylum there would be an entirely different set of rules in play. (Incorrect, as we have seen) That does not happen for the majority of the illegals because they try to circumvent the laws and enter illegally first. When they are then caught, they claim asylum. That doesn't work after the fact. (Incorrect)

    Do you actually know what the asylum laws says? I doubt you do but I'll tell you.

    International law requires that refugees fleeing a country & seeking asylum do so in the very first country they enter, providing that country will not continue to persecute them. (Incorrect) In the instances of the Central, South & Latin American refugees, that country would be Mexico, not the US as Mexico is not persecuting them.

    They are the very definition of illegal immigrants by international law and our own. (Incorrect on both counts)
    Also: "The mother and daughter entered the U.S. together in California in November and turned themselves into U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. Initially, the two were kept together. But about five days after they entered the U.S., the child was taken away “screaming and crying, pleading with guards not to take her away from her mother,” according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Diego." http://atlantablackstar.com/2018/03/...eeking-asylum/ Taken away screaming, crying, and pleading, after 5 days. That's not hyperbole.

  9. #729
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    100% on point.

    And over the course of the day, as we saw with our own Trump Cult Fascists, it turned to:

    "Unlike the nazis we're not going to kill people in our Concentration Camps."

    When faced with the literal definition of concentration camp, they took ownership of it.

  10. #730
    Elemental Lord Felfaadaern Darkterror's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The Vindicaar
    Posts
    8,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I'll likely be donating, but I donated $250 to the ACLU today after raid.

    Looking forward to them suing these fascist motherfuckers into oblivion.
    For anyone who wants to help that cause too,
    https://action.aclu.org/give/donate-to-aclu

    But the kids above probably need it more. ACLU is well funded.
    Thanks Skroe. I've been splitting my donations as well. It's hard to know which will do the most good. Here's hoping all these groups do their best work at times like these. The executive order may have been signed, but the kids are still not back with their parents! And who knows what will happen next?!

    - - - Updated - - -

    I believe in democracy, civil discourse, and the value of compromise. Immigration is a complicated topic, and there are many thoughts that cross my mind as I puzzle over solutions:
    • We are all from planet Earth, and none of us are aliens (despite reports to the contrary appearing in National Enquirer).
    • "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
    • I have traveled abroad and have friends all over the world.
    • My conservative friends have a right to feel their families are being protected.
    • Illegal immigrants will have a harder time being economically successful, and poverty can correlate with higher crime rates.
    • Studies have shown that immigration overall does not correlate with higher rates of violent crime.
    • Most of us agree with catching mobsters crossing the border, whether they are smuggling drugs, guns, or people.
    • It makes sense for any country to want to manage the influx of refugees so as to plan for their successful integration into their new home.
    • Desperate parents seeking safety for their kids have tough decisions to make when it comes to crossing the border - check in and risk rejection or sneak by and risk detection?
    • Big corporations have the freedom to move wherever the wages are lowest; why shouldn't workers have the freedom to move to where they are highest?
    • Even if we want 100% secure borders, is a wall the most efficient way to do it?
    • Even if a wall would be helpful, what kind of symbol does it represent? Turn the whole US into one big gated community?
    • If we want to wall out poverty, what's next? Build walls around poor neighborhoods in the US?

    Personally, I could accept family detention centers as a holding zone, as long as the stay was not indefinite and as long as the centers are maintained such that any of us would feel ok staying there with our families for 20 days.

    Personally, I think DACA should be codified into law.

    Personally, I'd rather spend more for secure borders - including more funding for the Coast Guard - but without a wall. Use drones, cameras, whatever it takes, but no wall. Would conservatives ever buy into the idea of a 'Virtual Wall'?



    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. ~ Thomas Paine
    Last edited by Felfaadaern Darkterror; 2018-06-21 at 05:08 AM.

  11. #731
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    How about we change the law so they aren't illegal.

    Would you stop complaining then?
    Yes.

    But I doubt that will happen.

  12. #732
    Time is killing it with the covers. Trump can hang this at Mar A Lago.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •