Kids In Cages...

[carpedm9587]

Then go look it up.

I've not found that data anywhere.

You're being deliberately obtuse and I'm not feeling generous enough to do the work for you. Either you have never seen a news report - or you're deliberately faking this.

Or the data has not been presented - only high-level news reports spun left or right by the respective media.

[carpedm9587]

There is no such thing as economic asylum - and condemning tens of thousands more plus their descendants to the same economic forces these folks are fleeing is NOT Christian.

Where did I say anything about economic asylum?

The solution to endemic poverty isn't to let a few people leave while others are condemned to stay because it's the most productive, most problematic (for the governments) that will leave, giving an escape valve to the political forces that would otherwise force change.

Your responding to something I didn't say or think, so I'll leave it to you.

[carpedm9587]

First Carp, from everything I have read the majority of those in this recent influx would not qualify for asylum, but merely came here for work.

If that is true - then the majority will be sent back - after the appropriate due process

Second, we could let them apply then send them back. That should take only a day or so. If they qualify, bring them back. Everything you leftists are suggesting is only making the problem worse.

Actually - if the solutions I outlined in previous posts were put in place, I suspect the immigration problem would significantly diminish, without making the sweeping "send them all back" statements that are being made here.

[Teallaura]

I've not found that data anywhere.



Or the data has not been presented - only high-level news reports spun left or right by the respective media.

Then you aren't looking very hard - or you think if you keep whining I'll do the work for you. Not happening.

[Teallaura]

Asylum remains something a country of good conscience will consider. I am surprised a Christian would make such a sweeping statement. Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan should be reviewed?

*emphasis mine

Where did I say anything about economic asylum?



Your responding to something I didn't say or think, so I'll leave it to you.

You're being awfully obtuse today - your quote appears above. We were discussing the current border situation to which asylum does not apply in the vast majority of cases.

[Cow Poke]

Your responding to something I didn't say or think, so I'll leave it to you.

Maybe your [sic] not getting enough sleep.

[seer]

If that is true - then the majority will be sent back - after the appropriate due process

No they won't - we have to release them into the population (catch and release), then they are here for good.

Actually - if the solutions I outlined in previous posts were put in place, I suspect the immigration problem would significantly diminish, without making the sweeping "send them all back" statements that are being made here.

????

[Charles]

I couldn't agree more with Michael Gerson:

The deeper scandal is this: Trump is trying to make desperate, suffering people the villains of our national story. He compares refugees fleeing repression and violence to snakes. He smears them as rapists and invaders. In his warped moral vision, mercy is a form of national weakness. Kindness and respect are crimes against the state. His approach to nationalism involves slander against the voiceless. It demands further oppression of the oppressed. Trump wants to change not just the policy of our government, but also the character of our country, into something hard, and dark, and dishonorable, and pitiless.

This is surely the kind of thing that people of faith exist to oppose. Christians in particular worship a God who put on the cloak of human need and weakness. A refugee God. A scarred God. A God sacrificed to political necessity, in front of a crowd claiming to serve justice and law.

What does “God is love” mean if it does not mean love for refugees? What does the “image of God” indicate if we refuse to see it in the wandering poor? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.2d13380716ea

[carpedm9587]

No they won't - we have to release them into the population (catch and release), then they are here for good.

Then our processes suck and need attention...

????

Been posted many times, Seer. They include little things like an arduous path to citizenship for DACA and existing illegal immigrants, a zero-tolerance illegal-entry policy going forward, adequate resources at the border to process any asylum claims or immigration requests within a month, adequate resources at the border to house up to two months (assuming previous point has been addressed) of asylum seekers, repairing/replacing/building fencing at any parts of the border where data indicates it is warranted and will be effective, beefing up detection capabilities along the entire border, aligning immigration needs to employment needs, putting in place a "temporary worker" approval process similar to the Pre-TSA line at the airport for seasonal workers, and addressing/owning the situation in source countries where former U.S policies have led to destabilization and working to foster economic viability through proven programs (e.g., micro loans, lending programs with domestic/U.S. buying requirements, etc.).

Meanwhile, we also need a president less prone to ratcheting up anti-immigrant sentiment.

[carpedm9587]

*emphasis mine

Yes, I used the word "asylum," not "economic asylum."

You're being awfully obtuse today - your quote appears above. We were discussing the current border situation to which asylum does not apply in the vast majority of cases.

And I am speaking to the injustice of applying the rule for the "vast majority of cases" to "all cases." If the vast majority of cases do not qualify for asylum under existing asylum rules, then they should go back. But turning everyone back because most of them don't qualify is simply not a just system. And we have a moral/legal obligation to provide asylum for those who truly qualify, so we have a moral/legal obligation to implement systems to separate the sheep from the goats and deal with each appropriately. Such a program would have the dual effect of sending the message that the U.S. is closed for business to those who do not qualify, but still welcomes those who truly have need. Eventually, that will impact the flow of immigrants. Right now, studies show that a huge number are coming here because they know they will end up staying here for years before the U.S. sorts things out. Those who do not qualify would be less likely to make the trip and the expense if they knew within a month they would be turned away if they did not qualify, would spend that month in detention at the border, and would have to make the return trip with nothing gain but great expense realized.

I also do not remember asking you to provide any data, so your comments about my motivations are more than a bit off. I simply noted that there is some data I would like to see, and I have not been able to find it, raising the question how anyone could hold the positions you espouse in the absence of this data.

[Roy]

To bad the majority of children forced to cross thousands of miles of open desert on foot are not accompanied by their parents.

The majority???

That seems extremely unlikely. The only actual numbers I can find are from ACLU report that claims that out of 2600 children separated from accompanying adults, only 46 were unrelated.

[NorrinRadd]

I couldn't agree more with Michael Gerson:

The deeper scandal is this: Trump is trying to make desperate, suffering people the villains of our national story. He compares refugees fleeing repression and violence to snakes. He smears them as rapists and invaders. In his warped moral vision, mercy is a form of national weakness. Kindness and respect are crimes against the state. His approach to nationalism involves slander against the voiceless. It demands further oppression of the oppressed. Trump wants to change not just the policy of our government, but also the character of our country, into something hard, and dark, and dishonorable, and pitiless.

For the record, at this point I'm in favor of painting over that silly "Give us your tired, your poor..." stuff on the Big Green Girl. Too many outsiders take it too literally.

As to the allegations that wad dishonestly dribbled out in that paragraph --

He's a faux conservative Never-Trumper taking the typical liberal view. In fact, all the ones who enter illegally *are* "invaders," encroachers, intruders. It's widely reported that numerous rapes are perpetrated en route, so by definition, a significant portion of the invaders are also rapists. Gerson, who I suppose purports to be "Christian," is the one committing "slander," also known as "bearing false witness," against Trump. Yes, he wants to change the policy of our government -- AWAY from the policies enacted under previous Administrations that are at fault in the current border crisis. The thing that is "hard, dark, dishonorable" is the heart of such a false accuser.

This is surely the kind of thing that people of faith exist to oppose. Christians in particular worship a God who put on the cloak of human need and weakness. A refugee God. A scarred God. A God sacrificed to political necessity, in front of a crowd claiming to serve justice and law.

It sounds as though this "Christian" pantload advocates willful law-BREAKING. It sounds as though he wishes to uncritically admit the hordes, whether they be truly needy, or rapists, or terrorists, or child-traffickers, or drug-smugglers, or carriers of various and sundry diseases (as if we don't have enough of that stuff in CA).

If he's advocating putting Americans at risk for the sake of hordes that may or may not be true refugees, and advocating law-breaking in the process, he's a turd of a Christian.

What does “God is love” mean if it does not mean love for refugees? What does the “image of God” indicate if we refuse to see it in the wandering poor? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.2d13380716ea

Well technically, MS-13 members still carry the "image of God." But I want them hung from poles, not welcomed.

[Sparko]

There is much data I would like to see before I would swallow this argument.

1) What number of children are arriving at the border in the company of someone who claims parentage?
2) What number of these lack any resources to prove parentage?
3) For those who lack that ability, a simple DNA test will make the case. Why can we not house them in a supervised setting with those claiming to be parents until that test can be completed (2-3 days), avoiding the need to separate children from bonafide parents and also avoiding children being with "hardened criminals" without supervision to ensure the safety of the children?

They are beginning to do DNA testing on immigrants with children. I posted this in this thread before. Amazing how you and others just ignore such facts and repeat the same nonsense.

DNA tests reveal 30% of suspected fraudulent migrant families were unrelated

Some of the migrant families arrested at the southern border weren't actually families.

In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren't theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system's temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday.

"There’s been some concern about, 'Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?'" the official said. "Those were not the case. In these cases, they are misrepresented as family members."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...were-unrelated



Oh and just as an aside, it is amusing to look back at the democrats before and after Trump became President regarding their stances on immigration reform.

[Sparko]

We DO have embassies in South America and in Central America - it's not actually necessary to physically turn up on the border to apply for asylum - but it IS necessary to show you fit the requirements.

The new regulation set in place by Trump says they have to apply for asylum in their own country first, and they cannot pass through a third country (e.g. Mexico) to apply for asylum in the US, they would have to apply there first. So if they want to come to the USA, they have to meet the requirements and apply in Guatemala. If they come here in a Caravan, they will have no chance at asylum in the USA.

I think that is fair. It means they can still apply for Asylum, and they don't have to take the 3000 mile dangerous trek to our border, and we don't have to separate families or hold anyone in cages.

[seer]

The new regulation set in place by Trump says they have to apply for asylum in their own country first, and they cannot pass through a third country (e.g. Mexico) to apply for asylum in the US, they would have to apply there first. So if they want to come to the USA, they have to meet the requirements and apply in Guatemala. If they come here in a Caravan, they will have no chance at asylum in the USA.

I think that is fair. It means they can still apply for Asylum, and they don't have to take the 3000 mile dangerous trek to our border, and we don't have to separate families or hold anyone in cages.

Yep...