He comes across as more intelligent than Sarah Palin.
Admittedly I know which one I'd rather chuck my nut muck over, but that's not the debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDu9CvbrnlM
Printable View
He comes across as more intelligent than Sarah Palin.
Admittedly I know which one I'd rather chuck my nut muck over, but that's not the debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDu9CvbrnlM
Ok, so what happens if a shoplifter is caught stealing while with a baby? What if that shopfliter needs to be arrested and questioned? At the instant you take the child into the care of the police, you are "separating families".Quote:
So, unless you think people should be put in prison for shoplifting and separated from their children, then it's hard to justify applying such a policy to illegal immigrants.
I'd be inclined to agree here. What do you mean by "prison daycare"? Are these children cared for by professionals in an environment fit for purpose?Quote:
a civilized state has a responsibility to rehome their children with another family, not keep them in a separate prison daycare for kids.
Is this really happening?Quote:
...because someone couldn't be bothered to do some paperwork to record which kids belonged with which adults
Callous? Has he exploited a natural disaster for his own personal financial benefit yet? Has he got around to creating his own foundation for that purpose?Quote:
After this, when the courts tell this callous retard his policy is illegal and inhumane, and force him to halt it, and then you see a video of a callous retard tossing paper towels to hurricane victims, it all starts to make sense.
That video is at least 15 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, being less of a retard than Sarah Palin is nothing to bang the drum about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slLCjLcgqbcQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
BUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Why do you have to take the child away from a shoplifter while you question them? And even if you do, we'd be talking at most an hour, not weeks and months of separation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Camps with fences around them and/or large cages.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are they being clothed and fed? Yes. Are they getting anything else? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It was before the courts got involved, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are those the only things that count as callous? How about enacting a policy like the one I described above (seeing as that was the context in which I used the word 'callous')?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
A whole sentence - amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And another promise he didn't keep, the fucking liar.
Actually a first offense border crossing is a misdemeanor, and actually IS punishable by prison. Subsequent offenses are felonies, and are punishable by more prison. Nice try there. But just saying things in a way that makes it sound like you know what the fuck your'e talking about doesn't mean you know what the fuck you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Oh, and I almost forgot - the callous retard forced children as young as 4 to represent themselves in court immigration proceedings. Guess how many four year olds are professional lawyers?
Tell it to the judge who forced the separation policy to end.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh wait, I'm sure he's a liberal crybaby snowflake 'cause he doesn't want to see families separated over a misdemeanor.
Again, you're just pretending like you know what the fuck you're talking about. You dont KNOW that it has anything to do with paperwork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
here's a more likely explanation....
Those kids were separated from their families LONG before they ever got near the border. Obviously the coyotes and cartels that are smuggling things and people across the border know that if they are with a kid, they don't go to jail. Maybe these bleedin' heart policies have created a perverse incentive for criminals to use children as decoys.
Or....if that's not the case, and they had always assumed that bringing a kid would not insulate them from imprisonment, then that means this stuff has been going on long before Trump. So why is it suddenly such an issue now?
Of course, you CAN jail someone for a misdemeanor illegal entry, just like you CAN jail someone for shoplifting. But most non-retards realize that's a severe punishment for a misdemeanor, and not one that you should apply by default.
totally not what happened. Again, you're PRETENDING to know what the fuck you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump didn't create any new policy. He just called for a zero-tolerance enforcement of existing laws. So it's not like the courts could do fuck about it. And when it went bad he said "WTF you want from me? If you don't like the law, change the fucking law congress!!"
And the republicans drafted a bill to address the problem. then the democrats said "no way we are letting the republicans be the hero on this. Yeah we're concerned about kids, but we care more about politics so we're gonna dig our heels in and get the media to keep blaming trump"
Then Trump issued an executive order. Problem solved.
Just because something doesn't agree with your worldview doesn't mean it's incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Authorities made the decision to take children from their parents without a plan to reunite families, resulting in numerous cases of parents and children having no contact since being forcefully separated.[15][16] Following national and international criticism, on June 20 President Trump signed an executive order ending family separations at the border.
It's easy to come up with excuses and alternate facts. The problem is it doesn't change anything, it just obfuscates the issue for lowbrows who don't want to believe their gov't deliberately acted this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And I seem to remember you saying it was ok to separate kids from parents if it would deter immigration, so not sure why you're now so keen to show they weren't doing it.
Zero-tolerance enforcement was the new policy. Try not to get stuck on the big words.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol, and that convinced who? I mean besides you and other Fox News fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
To say 'I'm just enforcing the existing laws to their fullest, even though those laws are unfair and cruel, so it's not my fault I chose to change the policy from lax enforcement to zero tolerance' is about as disingenuous as it gets.
You're not kidding anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol, Trump is the hero for changing a law that only began being enforced with zero tolerance once he decided it should be, never before. That's some kind of tap dance around the facts there.
How about just not changing the existing policy in the first place and avoiding the whole kerfuffle?
poop, there's a difference between shoplifting and gaining illegal entry into a foreign country. The shoplifter has a home to go to.
Do you think the state should allow child and parent to roam the streets? Perhaps you think the state should provide services for criminals trying to cross borders illegally?
The illegal immigrant is detained, that's standard in any country, not just USA. Try going to, idk, Iceland without your passport and tell them you want to work there. When you're arrested and detained, point out that it's a misdemeanor and you should be allowed to go about your business.
To stop the children from escaping?Quote:
Camps with fences around them and/or large cages.
Source please. If true, outrage is fair enough. They should be fed, clothed, cleansed, educated, entertained, cared for in a secure environment staffed with people who care about the wellbeing of children, regardless of their migrant status. I'm not interested if it's a compund with barbed wire around it, that's irrelevant.Quote:
Are they being clothed and fed? Yes. Are they getting anything else? No.
Again, I share outrage at not being professional and accurate with records when dealing with this matter.Quote:
It was before the courts got involved, yes.
But I have no idea what workable solution you have that doesn't involve separation of families. It's like you think these people are doing nothing wrong, that they are not breaking serious laws by attempting to enter foreign states illegally. You throw the word "misdenemour" about like it's akin to smoking a joint. I'm not interested if you like borders or not, but right now, in this moment in time, they exist. They are national boundries, and a government has a DUTY to protect them. Anyone attempting to cross illegally is subject to detention. With that in mind, if you try to cross anyway, get caught and have your child taken away while you are detained, then you are responsible for the separation of your family, not those protecting the border.
What's your solution?
So?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The previous default was called 'catch and release'. You'd give them a summons to go to immigration court, where they could present their case. And if they didn't show up they were ordered deported. If they did show up and could convince the court they deserved refugee status or presented their documents, they were allowed to stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The Trump policy was to separate the families, throw the kids in camps, put the parents in different camps, and not be too bothered about whether the parents and kids ended up together at the end of it all.
Is the alleged illegal immigrant separated from their children while the courts figure out their status? Don't think so, except as a last resort.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Attachment 1051
Keep the families together as often as possible, like every other country that claims to be civilized, and like they did before Trump went all 'zomfg zero-tolerance on immigrants'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you absolutely must jail thousands of alleged illegal immigrants a year, then first prepare places to house them as families, not just large cages for adults and other large cages for their children.
So... do I have to state the obvious? Where do illegal immigrants go after they have been interviewed?Quote:
So?
This is not a deterrant to criminals who already know they will not be allowed to stay. And criminals are the kind of people who try to cross borders illegally.Quote:
The previous default was called 'catch and release'.
The Trump policy is to not trust illegal immigrants who try to cross borders illegally. The family separation, that is on the adults who make the decision to try to cross borders illegally.Quote:
The Trump policy was to separate the families, throw the kids in camps, put the parents in different camps, and not be too bothered about whether the parents and kids ended up together at the end of it all.
I dunno, I've never tried to cross a border illegally, so to be honest I'm not sure how easy it is in countries other than USA. I'm just assuming I'd be detained until I face a court, since if I was not, if I were told to show up at court and until then enjoy your stay, well now I have a choice.Quote:
Is the alleged illegal immigrant separated from their children while the courts figure out their status? Don't think so, except as a last resort.
What, like those camps in Calais? Civilised.Quote:
Keep the families together as often as possible, like every other country that claims to be civilized, and like they did before Trump went all 'zomfg zero-tolerance on immigrants'
You didn't come up with a plan. All you did there was suggest families shouldn't be separated, and then took a swipe at Trump. But you offered no solution.
So are refugees and people fleeing war zones, like many of the Central Americans caught trying to go to the US. Strangely, they don't stop to think about mailing away for a visa while people are getting killed all around them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can't just put that on the refugees, and absolve the people who are doing the separating. It's like saying 'well a lot of the refugees have a choice between staying in a war zone and seeking refugee status or being illegal immigrants, it's not our fault if given a choice between possibly having their chidren killed and possibly having their children separated from them they still come here. What are we supposed to do, keep families together like other countries do?'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's a huge logistical difference between Calais (or for that matter the Hungary/Croatian border, or Turkey/Syria, or whatever, where there was a sudden surge of refugees, and the US where there are about the same number of illegal immigrants entering each year. Maybe ask yourself why this family separation issue suddenly became a problem specifically in the US specifically at the same time Trump went with zero-tolerance, because that's kinda the whole point here. It's not a discussion of how to handle a flood of refugees. We can discuss that another day if you like, but it's not really relevant to anything but whataboutism here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
First, not separating the families was my plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Second, I'm not in charge so I'm not responsible for having a plan. I already have a job. Trump's administration is in charge and so they're responsible. They had an existing plan which they inherited that had been in use for decades that they didn't like. But rather than work to replace it with something that would detain illegals/refugees while keeping families intact, they chose to discourage illegals/refugees by deliberately and cruelly separating families, while neglecting to keep adequate records of family members so they could be reunited in good time, if ever. You may think that's a fine plan; I think it's a human rights abuse.
You might have to provide me with a list of nations at war in South America, because the BBC only ever seem to mention Venezuela.Quote:
So are refugees and people fleeing war zones, like many of the Central Americans caught trying to go to the US. Strangely, they don't stop to think about mailing away for a visa while people are getting killed all around them.
Ok so if I barge into your house holding a baby, and say I'm stopping until I have my own place, when you call the police, you're the one separating me from my family. It wasn't me breaking the law.Quote:
You can't just put that on the refugees, and absolve the people who are doing the separating.
You're using the word "refugee" to desrcibe an economic migrant. Let's get back to talking about migrants, not refugees. Is Mexico at war?
Because people made screeching noises when border law was suddenly upheld.Quote:
Maybe ask yourself why this family separation issue suddenly became a problem specifically in the US specifically at the same time Trump went with zero-tolerance
FYPQuote:
It's not a discussion of how to handle a flood ofrefugeeseconomic migrants. We can discuss that another day if you like, but it's not really relevant to anything but whataboutism here.
Call them what they are poop, don't be disingenuous.
It's not a plan. That's like me saying my plan for the future is to get rich.Quote:
First, not separating the families was my plan.
I think you're just going to release them into the community and hope they don't do bad things. Further, you're not a bad person, so you can't just turn them onto the street. You're going to need to provide housing, and of course healthcare, education, food, water, perhaps a car. I'm sure there's no homless problem amongst your own citizens, just let more homeless people in and give them priority.
How do you even type this?Quote:
But rather than work to replace it with something that would detain illegals/refugees while keeping families intact
Your plan is to call economic migrants "refugees" and guilt the taxpayer into rewarding their criminal behaviour.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ekers-violenceQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
None of El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala share a border with USA. If they are fleeing war, they are refugees until they enter a nation that isn't at war. If they then continue to another country they would rather reside in, they become economic migrants. If they try to do so illegally, from a nation where they are not in danger and are able to properly apply for residence in USA, then they are criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We're seeing this in Europe. Refugees enter Italy, then try to get into Germany, France or the UK. Well they're not fleeing war it Italy, they are making a choice based on economics that they would like to continue their journey.
Let's not forget we're talking about ILLEGAL immigrants here, we're talking about people who made a choice to commit a crime instead of going the legal route. I'm not talking about people who are making a decision based on life and death, because that's not a real choice. If someone is fleeing Mexico because the Cartel want them dead, ok, I can accept the term "refugee". If someone enters Mexico from El Salvador and then applies for residence in USA, then maybe "refugee" is acceptable. But if someone enters Mexico, and then enters USA illegally, they are a criminal, and probably an economic migrant, because they seek better opportunities than Mexico offers. And they are doing so in a manner that lacks respect for the law and soveriegn integrity of the nation you are seeking to settle in. Not a good start.
People want to go to USA because of the opportunities it offers. That's economics.
I was busy this weekend, so didn't get a chance to post exactly this. Well played Ong.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can't already be in fucking Mexico, and then still need asylum.
Lol, like you can only seek asylum in countries that border the one you're fleeing. Unless you have a plane. Or a boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Get real.
These kinds of arguments just show the desperation of people trying to defend the child-separation policy. First, all the immigrants are child traffickers, gang members, and other "bad hombres". Now when it's pointed out a lot of them are actually refugees fleeing violence in their own country, then the story changes into 'their economic migrants seeking to get rich off American taxpayers; we must stop them by dislocating them from their children'
Pathetic.
So what you're saying is, if you're fleeing a war, you can pick your preferred destination off the globe, and maintain your refugee status? And even if you try to get into that country illegally, you're still morally in the right and should be treated with sympathy?
Why do they want to go to a country they do not share a border with? Why do they want to go to a country where the majority do not speak their language?
Economics.
Refugees and economic migrants are very different things. You can be blinded by sympathy all you like, and it's kind of admirable, but it's you who needs to get real.
That's not what I said. They want to go and work in America, because it's the best economic option in their region. But you're suggesting the taxpayer should foot the bill for their stay in hotels or whatever while they are processed having entered the country illegally. That's crazy.Quote:
then the story changes into 'their economic migrants seeking to get rich off American taxpayers
They should be detained while they are processed, and any children they brought along with them should be put into appropriate care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoVNLcXSQLw
This is the official white house channel clearly implying that illegal immigrants are more likely to murder your children than other people.
It's a nation of retards and cowards and I don't know why I was ever surprised. I feel like every country needs to experience totalitarianism at some point to get how it happens. Italians were like: lol sjw's are getting triggered by Mussolini - whoops dictatorship lulz, germans are like: look at them dumb italians, hitler would never... omegalulz didn't mean to! Russia is like: this Stalin guy sure will fix everything, NK is like... actually they thought it was a great idea from the get go.
Meanwhile you got almost verbatim nazi propaganda coming out of Trumps mouth and Banana posting cartoons that are stylistically indistinguishable from nazi propaganda cartoons. but: call me a racist and I'll knock your teeth out you low iq individual.
This is The Wave and you've been goose stepping from day one.
Ong, what the fuck is your image of the world? You want pakistani refugees to flee to india? You want turkish refugees to flee to greece? Have you ever been anywhere?
What happened where?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Pakistani refusgees? Turkish refugees?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
No, I don't expect economic migrants from Pakistan to seek better opportunities in India.
Even if neighbouring countries are friendly, why should they carry all the burden, especially since the economic or political situation of the country the people are fleeing from is more often than not, not the fault of its geographical neighbours.
Holy shit. Read a fucking book for once. OMG!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pakistan and Turkey are not nations at war. There is no mass movement of people due to natural disaster. And persecution, well there's certainly a few from Turkey and Pakistan that would qualify for refugee status, but the vast majority are seeking a better life, not fleeing persecution. Their religion is what persecutes them, and they aren't fleeing Islam.
You're happy to use the word "refugee" to describe someone who wants to move from a poor country to a wealthy one. I call these people economic migrants, because it's accurate.
How many cartoons depicting black people the exact same way nazi propaganda posters caricatured negroes have you posted lately?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So turkey is a neighbouring country of pakistan? Can you fucking stop having strong opinions on things you know less than shit about?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What? Do you think I didn't know Turkey and Pakistan share a border? I'm pretty hot with geography, I can even tell you the capitals of both, the largest city in Turkey, the second largest in Pakistan, and the languages they both speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
My point is there aren't many refugees from either Turkey or Pakistan because a refugee is someone fleeing war, natural disaster or persecution.
Did you just have a stroke?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Haha they don't share a border.
I'm smoking good weed.
We've successfully shifted from the point though. Refugees are not economic migrants.
And yes I'm an idiot. I don't pretend otherwise.
Crossing the border is not a crime.
Seeking asylum is not a crime.
Treating asylum seekers like criminals while their case is being reviewed is injustice.
Treating people whom have not yet been convicted of a crime as though they are already guilty is not what I was taught America is about.
People accused of crimes are not yet criminals. Something about "innocent until proven otherwise."
OK, so that applies to Americans under American laws. An asylum seeker is petitioning to be an American whom follows American laws.
While that process is underway, treating them as anything else is injustice.
All i said was there's no reason to separate families. You took from that somehow that I want them all given the red carpet treatment while they're processed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So I'll say it again for the last time: They shouldn't separate families.
Now explain to me why they should.
Really?Quote:
Crossing the border is not a crime.
Of course there is. To detain the illegal immigrant whilst providing care for the infant. You can't have the infant in the cell with the illegal immigrant, can you?Quote:
All i said was there's no reason to separate families.
Go easy on him. He just learned yesterday that there are refugees coming from C. America. Before he thought it was all Mexican baby rapists.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So what? Turn them onto the streets to fend for themselves?Quote:
You took from that somehow that I want them all given the red carpet treatment while they're processed.
Oh come on, I watch Breaking Bad, I know ABQ is full of Honduran laundry workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I can cross American borders perfectly legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is that in question?
We're talking about national borders. Is it a crime to enter Canada without your passport? If not, is that because of a bilateral agreement?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I don't see why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They are accused of illegal activity, if at all, not convicted.
Separating children from their parents is a huge deal. It should never be done lightly. If a parent is a convicted criminal, then that opens the door to extreme measures, but merely being accused of a crime is far, far too low a bar for something with such deep impact.
I thought the Reps stood for family values, anyway. This is not what their party is about, let alone what America is about.
Sure, but the gov't there is all crybaby liberal snowflakes who won't separate you from your children if you lose your passport.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pretty sure the US returns the favour to Canadians. It helps to not come from a shithole country I guess.
Ok, so do youQuote:
They are accused of illegal activity, if at all, not convicted.
a) detain them,
b) turn them onto the streets,
c) put them up in hotels or housing,
d) other (please elaborate)
ZeroQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Next question?
I'm sorry I wasn't aware there was a problem with Americans fleeing to Canada with their children in tow. If that were actually happening, well I'd imagine the Canadians might bolster the border somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Housing families together in the same facility, even if that is a guarded camp, is preferable to putting them in different facilities and not keeping track of which child belongs to which parent, so they might never see each other again.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Right, so you're in favour of baby jails. Funny that it was oskar who insisted it was me who liked that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The "not keeping track"... that's a different matter to "separating families". I am not against one but most certainly against the other.
It is without a visaQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What would a person be suffering from in Northern Mexico, for which they would need asylum in the United States?Quote:
Seeking asylum is not a crime.
Treating asylum seekers like criminals while their case is being reviewed is injustice.
LOL luckily for civilization it's more nuanced than that. See, there's something called 'probable cause'. That says that if law enforcement catches you in the act, or suspects you of a crime, they can detain you pending an investigation. So...if the law I'm enforcing is the border, and I find you on my side of the border, and you don't have a visa, then I have probable cause to detain you and investigate.Quote:
Treating people whom have not yet been convicted of a crime as though they are already guilty is not what I was taught America is about.
People accused of crimes are not yet criminals. Something about "innocent until proven otherwise."
If that investigation results in charges, I can further detain you until trial if you are believed to be a flight risk. And anyone jumping the border is probably a flight risk!
Next time a cop tries to pull you over for speeding, just keep driving. Try that "innocent until proven guilty" line.
LOL, you've caught yourself in a logic trap there champ. If the Asylum seeker enters the US without a visa....are they following American laws?Quote:
OK, so that applies to Americans under American laws. An asylum seeker is petitioning to be an American whom follows American laws.
While that process is underway, treating them as anything else is injustice.
No, you're doing a reductio ad bananum here. "Baby jails" clearly refers to the fact that children are being kept in separate jails from their parents. That's why he said "baby jails" and not "family jails."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And so, using the appropriate definition, you are in favour of baby jails.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
At least you're not completely against human rights for immigrants.
Do you understand what asylum seeking means? It's not about sneaking into a country and then, if you get caught, claiming asylum.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Asylum seekers present themselves to immigration at a border crossing and file a claim to asylum. They're then detained (previously as a family unit, but for a while not), while their case goes to proceedings. What law are they breaking by doing that? What possible justification is there for separating them from their children under these circumstances?
Hmmm, not so fastQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
^ I believe these stories are either not true, or extremely rare.Quote:
Asylum seekers present themselves to immigration at a border crossing and file a claim to asylum. They're then detained (previously as a family unit, but for a while not), while their case goes to proceedings. What law are they breaking by doing that? What possible justification is there for separating them from their children under these circumstances?
The bulk of these "family separations" were plain old border jumpers who didn't effectively use their 20 day grace period to make arrangements for their kids.
Here's a good description of the issue.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...sual-explainer
Honestly, being from Vox, I expected this to be a demagogue-ish rant full of inaccuracies and anti-Trump rhetoric. Even if it can still be called, that, I actually have NO PROBLEM with this process as described. None.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It says right in there, all these folks had to do was get in line.
But they might be refused....so they cheat??!! WTF??
The line is too long, so they cheat??!! WTF??
If their asylum claim can't withstand regular vetting procedures, then it's probably bullshit anyway. If they need to cheat the system in order to get entry into the US, then I flat out do not give a fuck what ill befalls them. Follow the rules, or fuck off.
Right, so these people are supposed to present themselves at a border crossing, then wait for a long time in a prison for the chance to go stand in front of a judge and have a 25% chance of gaining legal entry. And you're surprised sneaking in seems like a better option to them, and if they do sneak in and get caught they should lose their children.
gg
Oh and this little bit of breaking international law on asylum seekers is OK if you're America and claim to be the moral authority of the world.
Quote:
Instead of first figuring out whether you should be granted asylum, the administration’s first step is now to deal with the other matter at hand: the misdemeanor for illegal entry.
"Zero tolerance" ftw
Quote:
3) After serving time in jail, parents try to reunite with their kids. But there is no process to make this happen.
And it could take time to see a judge because immigration courts are backlogged — and this would get worse since the Trump administration wants to prosecute all border crossers.
The maximum sentence for a first-time illegal entry conviction is six months. Usually judges just sentence immigrants to “time served.”
Once you’ve been convicted, you are returned to the custody of immigration officials to go through deportation proceedings. This is when you can theoretically reunite with your child at a civil detention center while you pursue your asylum case, according to the administration.
But that’s not what’s happening. The US has no procedure to reunite parents with children. In the detention centers, immigrants don’t have phone access. It’s taken some parents months to track down their kids. In addition, some parents are being deported without their children, and advocates say some small children are being deported without their parents.
yaya I know, what about Hillary's emails?
Right, so let's say I want to move to USA. I just turn up at the border?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD DOQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, I'm not surprised at that. Robbing a bank sounds like a better option than starving to death, that's still not a good reason to do it.Quote:
And you're surprised sneaking in seems like a better option to them
No, they should realize that they fucked up, and broke the rules. They should own their actions and accept responsibilities for the offenses they have made. They should take advantage of the 20 day waiting period and make arrangements for their child's safety. Then they should man-up and accept whatever consequences the US government has decided is appropriate for being a selfish rule-breaking ass hole.Quote:
and if they do sneak in and get caught they should lose their children.
Poop, your whole argument seems to be "getting arrested sucks, so we shouldn't make people endure that, unless they're american, then fuck 'em"
You seem to be advocating a policy that allows people to insulate themselves against prosecution by accompanying a child. Do you not see what a perverse incentive that creates? Do you not see how that puts MORE kids in danger!!??
Sorry I thought you read that Vox piece. They aren't given 20 days to find somewhere for their kids to go, they're separated immediately. Where do you get that from? And even if they did have 20 days, how are they going to contact anyone when they're not given access to a phone?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But ok, just keep making up your own facts if it makes you feel better.
Those kids are much better off now without their parents.
Are you comparing your situation to that of an asylum seekier from C. America running for their lives? What are even getting at?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Agreed. Problem solvedQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Running for their lives? All the way from El Salvador to USA? Running for their economic benefit, more like. Why did they travel through ALL of Mexico? Why do they fear for their lives there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You seem to think that if you're running for your life, you can choose where you go.
What I was getting at is there is a proper way to apply for residency in another country. Getting to the border unannounced and then crossing illegally is not the way to do it. If you do, and if you get caught, then you bear the consequences.
Really, the question isn't whether these asylum seekers chose their destination for reasons x, y, z or some other. They're there in the US, they have a valid claim to asylum, and international law says you have to take them. If that's inconvenient for your country, tough shit, ask another country for help if you need to. But as long as you're in the UN, you play by their rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Funny how people want to say the asylum seekers should play by the US's rules, but if they don't, then the US can ignore the UN's rules, and do whatever the fuck they want with them, and it's the asylum seekers' fault if their kids get lost in the system.
It's not what I think, it's a fact. You're allowed to go to whatever country you can get to and claim asylum; you don't have to pick the nearest one to your hometown. Learn something every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
To get to USA from either El Salvador or Honduras, you'll need to go through Guatemala and then Mexico. According to the Fragile States Index (http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/) Guatemala is less stable than both El Salvador and Honduras. So if they're running for their lives from an unstable country, why the fuck are they heading north?
If they head south, they will first get to Nicaragua, which is about as stable as Honduras, and then on to Costa Rica and then Panama, both very stable, comparable to USA. Further, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama all have something in common... language. These nations are also MUCH closer than USA.
So Costa Rica is closer, safer to get to, and culturally similar. Yet they still travel north.
Why? Economics.
Again, it's irrelevant WHY they choose any particular country. Some probably do go to Costa Rica or Panama. The rules don't stipulate they have to go to the nearest stable country, so they don't really have to explain their choice. That's the beauty of being an asylum seeker running for your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Only if you don't want to distinguish between a refugee and an economic migrant.Quote:
Again, it's irrelevant WHY they choose any particular country.
Dude...just stop. If their claims to asylum were so rock-solid and bound by international law....they would just wait in line like everyone else. They try to go around the system for a reason. Stop acting like these are oppressed people deserving of sympathy. They're opportunistic criminals supported by opportunistic partisan demagogues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
They're not running for their life. If you're being chased by a wolf, do you run towards lions?Quote:
That's the beauty of being an asylum seeker running for your life.
The UN sets the rules, not me or you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Indeed. The UN distinguish between refugee and economic migrant, and the rules are different. If you're an economic migrant, you don't enjoy the same rights as refugees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
lol, it's real cute how you keep using this word when you clearly have no idea what it means. Kinda like Trump trying to explain what a hurricane is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My use of the word was wholly apt. You're running our arguments and falling back on insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Why don't you just save yourself the trouble and say "Banana, you win, I'm retarded"
Maybe try to read something and then you can actually talk sense once in a while instead of just talking out of your ass all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/definitions
Isn't a demagogue someone who appeals to prejudice?
Actually I'm just getting bored of trying to talk sense to you and Ong when you're both more interested in talking any shit you can to defend separating children from their parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's more about elevating popular emotion-based opinions over rational factual analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Like some people don't like Trump. A demagogue will manipulate that by appealing to that person's worst fears and saying stuff like "Trump is a fascist nazi!".
Lol, you call everyone here a demagogue on an almost daily basis. I guess it's supposed to be funny, which it is. But just not in the way you think it is.
How about 'Trump is a human rights abuser for enacting the separation policy.' Is that demagoguery?Quote:
a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas
no one is defending that. But to put all the blame on Trump's administration is not acknowledging the whole problem at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
First of all, if you made it all the way to northern mexico, your *need* for asylum is pretty fucking dubious in the first place.
Second, if you have a legit asylum claim....then just wait in line. What imminent threat exists in Northern Mexico that makes you above the rules??
Breaking the rules has consequences. Whether you're an asylum seeker with a legitimate claim, or whether you're a criminal smuggler with MS-13 tattoos on your forehead....the law applies the same. You can't cross the border in between checkpoints. period. Don't do it, or you will be charged. What's wrong with that?
Poop - you refuse to acknowledge that a 'catch and release' policy only incentivizes people to take children on dangerous journeys.
Should there be a better process for reuniting people with minor children....probably. If that's the worst thing Trump does in his presidency, he's one of the all-time greats. The problem got fixed pretty shortly after it was publicized, and it would have been fixed sooner if congressional democrats weren't cocksucking pricks. So sorry that Trump isn't batting 1.000. What do you want him to do about it now?
It's such an apt word! I wish it had synonyms, but it doesn't. You engage in demagoguery on an almost daily basis. What else would I call it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
YeahQuote:
How about 'Trump is a human rights abuser for enacting the separation policy.' Is that demagoguery?
So you're sticking with the idea they are fleeing for their lives? From one unstable country to an even more unstable country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You just proved my point... that the UN distinguish between the two. See "labour migration" on the same site.
Then you're obviously missing the entire point I made, or ignoring it just for the sake of arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Can you make a point without it being an entire page long? There's no way I'm ever going to read all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here's an idea: cut out all the insults and hyperbole and "demagoguery" and just make the argument you want to make as plainly and succinctly as you can. It's not a contest to see who can type the most words.
The weren't "fleeing for their lives" when they decided to get from northern mexico to southern USA by sneaking between border checkpoints.
That's not fleeing.
That's a calculated decision to skip the line, ignore due process, and circumvent screening.
lol, so any criticism of Trump, valid or not, is demagoguery in your mind. No wonder you use the word so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
ugh ooga booga man break law gug buga he go cage room durka booga ugh family no go tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Any surrounding circumstances of what he may have fled and left behind 3000 miles south are irrelevant to the crime at hand.
See how easy that was?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They weren't fleeing Mexico though, they were fleeing their own country and using Mexico as a transit point on their way to the country to which they were fleeing to.
no, sensational baseless claims like "human rights abuser" that have no basis in fact or legal definitions, and that are only mean to illicit negative emotional responses, qualify as demagoguery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's EXACTLY the kind of bullshit the word was made for.
But you still agree, if they had just got in line, the legal way, like everyone else, the would not have been separatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You agree that any separations are the result of a calculated decision to commit a misdemeanor with no mitigating circumstances other than being selfish and lazy.
I guess you can't make a succinct argument. Sorry for pushing you into the deep end there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I understand the gov't policy. I just don't think that makes it ok to separate families. Either don't enact the policy or if you must enact it, find a way to keep the families together.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I agree they would have avoided the cruel and inhumane treatment by following the rules yes. Maybe they didn't know that though, as it wasn't the policy before. Have you thought of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sure, just like you agree that any separations are the result of a calculated decision to deter immigrants and asylum seekers by separating them from their children.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I dont' get what your problem is.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's the exact same separation policy that applies to single-moms busted for shoplifting at wal-mart. You commit a crime, you get arrested, you go to jail, and your kid doesn't get to come with you.
If you need asylum, there are ways to get it. If you get rejected...that's on you. Apparently shit wasn't as bad as you thought. If it takes a long time...tough shit. The border patrol isn't interested in intentionally slow-walking anything. They're trying to keep america safe by vetting everybody and that takes time.
if you CHEAT, then you face the consequences. And if htat means you go to jail without your kids....so be it.
The only thing I will acknowledge is that there could have been a better way to reunite folks after all this was done. But on the list of things that tilt me in politics, this is probably number 10,847. I'm not really sad if criminals are having a hard time.