Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[Littlejoe]

I'm addressing the bolded part. Do you have substantiation for this? It is my understanding that we have 11M TOTAL illegal immigrants in the U.S., and that this number has been falling since it peaked at 12.2M in 2007. This means that the past 11 years have either seen more people leaving than coming. Since deportations have never exceeded 500K/year, unless a lot of people are voluntarily walking out, annual illegal immigration is nowhere near 11M.

You're right...if they don't get caught, there's really no way to know the actual number. (I know I read that number somewhere...but where?) But, just because there MAY be more leaving than coming in doesn't negate the millions that are already here. It's like the old canard of 50% of marriages end in divorce...that's never been accurate, but the number comes from taking the number of marriages in a year (approx. 2 million) and subtracting the number of divorces, (approx 1 million) and never accounting for all the ones already married who are not divorcing.

[Starlight]

You keep saying that but it is not true. They did the same things.

You keep saying that but it is not true.

[Starlight]

You're right...if they don't get caught, there's really no way to know the actual number.

I was intrigued to read a comment from the immigration lawyer I cited earlier in the thread, that he believes the physical border is now completely secure due to modern technology and enforcement, because in his personal dealings with thousands of illegal immigrants he has never met a single one who recently (in the last decade) crossed the border without being caught at or near the border. His view was now that 100% of uncaught illegal immigration is via people landing in airplanes with valid visas and then overstaying after their visa has expired. Obviously government databases record people entering/exiting the country via airplanes and they can generate exact numbers and lists of the people who entered with a valid visa but who have not subsequently left the country.

[Starlight]

(If I was from the UK my English would be far better).

Wow, I assumed you were a native speaker. Your English seems perfect to me.

[carpedm9587]

You're right...if they don't get caught, there's really no way to know the actual number. (I know I read that number somewhere...but where?) But, just because there MAY be more leaving than coming in doesn't negate the millions that are already here. It's like the old canard of 50% of marriages end in divorce...that's never been accurate, but the number comes from taking the number of marriages in a year (approx. 2 million) and subtracting the number of divorces, (approx 1 million) and never accounting for all the ones already married who are not divorcing.

You know, you are one of the few people here I have seen write "you're right" in any post - so kudos to you.

And you too are right - it does not negate the millions already here. And we need to do something about that. Stopping the flow at the borders is important, and I actually support a crack-down on illegal immigration. I simply don't think it should be done in a vacuum. I think the current 11M is partly the responsibility of those who came here, and partly the responsibility of our lax and poorly structured immigration laws. I think we should a) provide those already here with a path to citizenship (rigorous, and demanding, but affordable) as long as they have not trasngressed the law (something more serious than a speeding ticket or parking ticket), b) put a stake in the sand and make it clear that all other illegal immigrants entering from today will be returned without exception. c) clarify our asylum policies so people approaching ports of entry requesting asylum have an avenue for being evaluated and a determination made.

My reason for a) is simple: anything else is just too disruptive. The number of illegal immigrants that have been in the U.S. more than 10 years has soared in the last 10 years. MOST of the people currently here have been here for more than a decade. They are part of our country now. We had poor laws. We failed to follow up. We own part of the problem. There are many kids involved. Sorting it all out and exporting them all will cost a fortune and disrupt a lot of businesses and families. I don't see the gain.

[KingsGambit]

Wow, I assumed you were a native speaker. Your English seems perfect to me.

A general rule of thumb on the Internet is that anybody who apologizes for non-native English probably speaks it far better than most natives.

[Littlejoe]

I was intrigued to read a comment from the immigration lawyer I cited earlier in the thread, that he believes the physical border is now completely secure due to modern technology and enforcement, because in his personal dealings with thousands of illegal immigrants he has never met a single one who recently (in the last decade) crossed the border without being caught at or near the border. His view was now that 100% of uncaught illegal immigration is via people landing in airplanes with valid visas and then overstaying after their visa has expired. Obviously government databases record people entering/exiting the country via airplanes and they can generate exact numbers and lists of the people who entered with a valid visa but who have not subsequently left the country.

Then he would be wrong I'm afraid. On the CBS Evening News, (yesterday?) they were interviewing people in one of the border towns, and one woman told them that they swim across basically right across the street, then they run across the road and jump her fence. She showed the bowed top rail on her chain link fence and said that she's watched them do it. Not that long ago, they found a trailer with a bunch of illegal in it abandoned on the side of the road. They still find tunnels dug under the border. It's impossible to know if it's just a trickle of a flood. I know it's not a problem for day laborers to be found on street corners all over Texas. They work cheap and so, it's not hard for them to get work. They live 4 - 6 to a 2 bedroom apt. and split the rent. A job usually gets them under the table cash of between $75 - $100/day + free lunch. A man, trying to support a family, with a house or apt, etc. Can't compete with them.

[Cow Poke]

Then he would be wrong I'm afraid. On the CBS Evening News, (yesterday?) they were interviewing people in one of the border towns, and one woman told them that they swim across basically right across the street, then they run across the road and jump her fence. She showed the bowed top rail on her chain link fence and said that she's watched them do it. Not that long ago, they found a trailer with a bunch of illegal in it abandoned on the side of the road. They still find tunnels dug under the border. It's impossible to know if it's just a trickle of a flood. I know it's not a problem for day laborers to be found on street corners all over Texas. They work cheap and so, it's not hard for them to get work. They live 4 - 6 to a 2 bedroom apt. and split the rent. A job usually gets them under the table cash of between $75 - $100/day + free lunch. A man, trying to support a family, with a house or apt, etc. Can't compete with them.

Yeah, the ranchers along the border where our gas compression was - one in particular said they had 300 a year come through his property, but that has recently become 300 a month. They used to ask for a job ranch hand, and he would hire some of them - then in the 90's they just started taking what they wanted, and this one particular guy has had over 30 murders on his ranch. There are long stretches of the border where the river is so low you can wade across it.

I had to tell our employees, "Officially, if you have a gun in your truck, I'd have to fire you, but UNofficially, you're stupid if you DON'T have a gun".

[Starlight]

A general rule of thumb on the Internet is that anybody who apologizes for non-native English probably speaks it far better than most natives.

I see Trump's just signed an executive order that he claims will stop the family separations (on my reading of it, it won't, but we'll see), and his administration managed to achieve a misspelling in the title of the signed order, because of course.

Why won't Trump's order solve the problem? Because the problem is caused by:
1. The Trump administration's choice to criminally prosecute everyone caught crossing the border for the first time rather than treating it more lightly (it's only a misdemeanor) like past administrations.
2. The Trump administration's choice to not let these people out on bail while their cases are pending, and to hold them in custody.
3. Past court rulings saying it's inhumane for the government to hold families with children in custody for longer than 20 days.
4. The Trump administration's choice to very legally dubiously 'get around' that ruling by breaking up families, and then claiming it's not holding the family in custody.

The memo says: Keep doing #1, keep doing #2, ask the courts to change their ruling on #3 so we can imprison families for longer than 20 days, don't do #4 unless it turns out that you have to in order to satisfy #1 through #3 (which it currently does, so no change).

Basically the memo says "don't imprison kids and separate families, unless all the choices we've made - which are reaffirmed in this memo - end up meaning you need to do so". So, no change as far as I can see.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, Pix, when you are rating the honesty of a claim, it's not a matter for science. You look at the words, you look at the things they refer to, you note the degree to which the claim aligns to the truth and the degree to which it attempts to "fudge" and you subjectively apply a rating. To assess the rating, you read the article and (hopefully) spot-check the claims.

How many people are going to take the time to spot check a claim? See there’s a rather amusing example during the election where Trump and Sanders said the same thing and were both fact checked. Trump was rated mostly false while Sanders was rated mostly true. If you want to trust those hacks because they tell you what you want to hear, go ahead. I prefer to point out that they are yet another group of hacks, pretending to be impartial. The truth-o-meter is just opinion based journism at its finest mascerading as factual based.

When an opinion is about a "fact," it can be objectively assessed. It may be Trump's "opinion" that he won by the "greatest landslide in the history of the presidency," but that "opinion" does not pass scrutiny, since his electoral win places him 46th out of 58 elections. So..."pants on fire." Trump has made MANY such claims, none of which pass the sniff test for "truth."

Some can be objectively measured and others can’t be. I would hope you know that.

You opinion is duly noted...

Interesting how you’re trying to wave away all the issues that have been brought up as a matter of opinion. Fact is acting as impartial while being a bunch of hacks, playing politics is a problem. Carrying the water of your preferred candidates is a problem. Changing up statements to something else, is a problem. Bury your had in the sand, but these issues are not going away.

[KingsGambit]

I don't know how useful spot checking claims is anymore since people will dismiss them out of hand.

One co-worker of mine was repeating the urban legend that Fred Rogers had a bunch of vulgar military tattoos from his youth, thus him wearing a cardigan. I told him that Snopes showed a picture of him shirtless (from an episode where he went swimming) and that he had no tattoos. He dismissed everything I said because of the word "Snopes". Even though Snopes is biased, in this case they provided photo evidence that directly refuted his claim, but he was unwilling to consider it. (This was especially odd since his claim had nothing to do with politics.)

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't know how useful spot checking claims is anymore since people will dismiss them out of hand.

One co-worker of mine was repeating the urban legend that Fred Rogers had a bunch of vulgar military tattoos from his youth, thus him wearing a cardigan. I told him that Snopes showed a picture of him shirtless (from an episode where he went swimming) and that he had no tattoos. He dismissed everything I said because of the word "Snopes". Even though Snopes is biased, in this case they provided photo evidence that directly refuted his claim, but he was unwilling to consider it. (This was especially odd since his claim had nothing to do with politics.)

Snopes did it to themselves by playing to one side, but on tales that have little to do with politics, snopes is quite a bit better.

[Starlight]

Then he would be wrong I'm afraid. On the CBS Evening News, (yesterday?) they were interviewing people in one of the border towns, and one woman told them that they swim across basically right across the street, then they run across the road and jump her fence.

That's not necessarily in disagreement to what the immigration lawyer was saying, as his view was that such people get rapidly apprehended if they travel away from such border areas. So while there might be reasonable numbers of border-crossers illegally in the US near the border or in border towns, his own experience was that in the rest of the country he hasn't met any such person who's crossed within the last decade, despite meeting and dealing with thousands of illegal immigrants as part of his job.

They used to ask for a job ranch hand, and he would hire some of them - then in the 90's they just started taking what they wanted, and this one particular guy has had over 30 murders on his ranch.

The lawyer was saying the situation changed dramatically post-2007, so your anecdotes from the 90s aren't exactly relevant. He said all border-crossers he's met among the thousands of illegal immigrants he's worked with (in D.C. where he works) crossed pre-2007 with none having crossed subsequent to that, and that 100% of illegals he's encountered who entered post-2007 were visa over-stayers.

[Mountain Man]

Bottom line, Trump is CHOOSING to...

...prosecute these people
...send them to a federal penitentiary (which the children cannot go to)

You mean he chooses to... enforce the law as written? The nerve of that guy!

I know, a president who actually believes in the rule of law is a crazy concept to you liberals after 8-years of a president who simply ignored whatever laws he didn't like and attempted to rule by fiat with a pen and a phone.

[KingsGambit]

Snopes did it to themselves by playing to one side, but on tales that have little to do with politics, snopes is quite a bit better.

My broader point is that it seems like people are letting sources think for them. The other day, I saw somebody on here refuse to look at paragraphs (with citations) from a fact checking site because the site was too partisan, then quoted Breitbart later in their own post, which I think is fair to call a partisan site as well. These sites can be wrong but they generally cite their sources. Looking at them can be considered an exercise in critical thinking, even if one is disinclined to take them at face value. It seems that people don't want to use critical thinking anymore, but rather just believe claims if the source is something they're inclined to believe in the first place.