Drlee wrote:
It is not fundamentally different. I have no problem with the US denying asylum requests.
We have laws covering asylum requests here. I am sure Germany and Italy do also. Ours state that once they present themselves at a port of entry they have the privilege of an asylum hearing.
Here is where I draw the line. It is one thing to individually flee from a particular tyranny. Economic migration is quite another.
Don't think for a moment that because I am critical of the Trump administrations draconian family separation policy and "zero tolerance" policy that threatens people who have been in the US for decades, that I am for open borders. I am not. I lean toward a version of Trump's merit based system in some respects.
Here is what was going on in the US for a long time. In the past, when the border patrol caught someone illegally crossing they would simply process them and kick them right back across the border. (That is if they were Mexican. Many aren't.) Now we are prosecuting all illegal entrants caught at the border. This serves the purpose of making any further attempt at illegal entry a more serious offense. I am fine with that too. I never did like "catch and release".
Also. Please do not think that I am being facetious when I say that I favor strict workplace enforcement. I do. I believe it is outrageous to allow American business people to dangle a huge carrot in front of the desperately poor and then complain when they try to eat it. Make no mistake. Business benefits greatly from illegal labor. It does drive down wages for citizens. There is no doubt about that in my mind. I believe that business owners should be prosecuted for hiring illegals and I believe that we should move to a tighter verification standard before any worker is hired. FULL STOP.
Now that we agree to do that we have to do some stuff before we can implement it. We have to decide what to do with the workers who are here and have been here for many years. We have to decide what to do with the parents of American citizens. It is my opinion that if we decide that one child born here is not entitled to American Citizenship in accordance with our constitution, then where does this stop? IMO, if a mom and dad work here, pay taxes, and abide by the law, it is in our enlightened interest to allow them to stay. Sure they could take their daughter to Mexico where and raise here there. But we can't deport her. And she has a constitutional right to either remain here or come back whenever she pleases.'
Another smart thing we need to do is look at the practical economic reasons to allow some illegal immigrants to stay. There are many and I have already outlined them.
So simply. I want the dreamers to stay. I want the employed and law abiding parents of American citizens to have the opportunity to stay. I believe mass deportations would destroy our economy and disrupt our daily life extremely. In other words I want sensible immigration programs that move us to some reasonable form of stasis.
Does that explain my position better?
On edit.
Let me propose a hypothetical that is not that far fetched.
Suppose I was born in Mexico and brought to the US, illegally entering at the age of two in my mother's arms. I am 13 now and was deported at the age of 12 to Mexico. . I don't speak Spanish well and know nothing of Mexico. I try a few months of living there and hate it. So I grab my American birth certificate or passport and walk to the port of entry. Informing the ICE agent that I am a citizen and crave entry into the US, what is the agent to do? Then, with no family in the US I walk in to child protective services and ask for help. They can't by law turn me away. So into very expensive foster care I go. I maintain that the US would have been far better off offering a green card to my parents in the first place.
See what I mean.
The problem with amnesties is that they reward illegal entry and undermine all other efforts to curb it. I also don't think mass deportations are necessary, especially if common sense policies such as e-verify are combined with making it clear, preferably by law, that if you ever came to the country illegally you are barred from ever obtaining legal residence or citizenship. Deportations should be a last resort and announced well in advance to give people the chance to self-deport.
There will be hardship, no doubt, but that's clearly also the case with the migrants that come via the Mediterranean. So far in 2018 over 1,000 have drowned and there are plenty of stories of migrants being abused on their journey through Africa, including by police forces of countries which have deals with European countries to stop them. And while drowning isn't a factor for illegal migrants coming to the US, abuse and violence certainly is. Anybody who purports to care about those people needs to address the incentives created by lenient policies in Europe or the US and that they contribute to a situation that leads to more hardship than a temporary separation of children from their parents.
As for your example, if the person has come to the US illegally as a child, why would they have a US birth certificate or passport? I'm not a fan of birthright citizenship, by the way, in case you meant to say that the person was born in the US to illegal immigrants.
Rugoz wrote:The "Trump separates children from families thread" was full of bullshit like "it's the will of the asylum-seekers since they come here" and "it's impossible the incarcerate them as a family" and "they will go into hiding" etc., instead of being honest and saying "we have to be cruel to them for deterrence".
Leaving aside the "it's the will of asylum seekers", how are the claims "bullshit"? I agree that deterrence is probably the main point.
Rugoz wrote:I think we should limit the cruelty to what is "necessary", namely sending them back to where they came from.
And frankly stop NGOs from acting as smugglers, though I'm not sure shutting down ports to their ships is the right way to do it.
Everybody would agree that cruelty should be kept to a minimum if it is indeed necessary. That's the theory. In practice, having a deal with a country like Sudan to stop migrants is likely to lead to a lot of cruelty and abuse, and it could be argued that having no such agreement and dealing with illegal migrants once they arrive in Europe is much more humane. Yet, Europeans seem to be much more prepared to ignore hardship and cruelty if they happen, say, in Libya rather than in Italy and I suspect the same is true for Americans. So there is quite a discrepancy in what is and is not acceptable to people depending on where it happens.
Personally, I'd prefer if people could just own up to the fact that stopping illegal migration isn't going to happen without hardship, but since that is unlikely to happen outsourcing most of the deterrence is probably the next best option.