[Drlee]

The lack of a sense of proportion on the conservative side is absurd.

I have posted this before so please pay attention.

This is directly from the US Statute:

Penalty for illegal entry: (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry)

Under Georgia law the penalty for littering: (Chosen because it is a bright red state.)

Ga. Code §16-7-43

Misdemeanor. Fine up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year (§17-10-3). Violators may also be required to pick up litter over a distance not to exceed one mile. The court may publish the names of persons convicted under the statute.

So how would you feel if people were locked up and their children taken away for protracted periods of time for the obviously more serious crime (judging by the penalty) of littering?

...it only makes sense that the government presumes them guilty of the crime of illegal immigration based on the apparent facts...

Leave it to a conservative to want to destroy one of our most cherished historical rights...that of presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yes the government has probable cause to arrest the person but they are still presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

...just like if I was taken by police into custody because I was witnessed shooting at someone with a gun.

Wrong again. Leave it to a conservative to equate an infraction less severe than speeding in Virginia with the attempt to kill people. Sounds just like Trumps "they're rapists..."

All these idiots want to abolish ice and borders, i'll agree if they abolish all police, child protective services, and all gun regulations.

Sigh

[Conscript]

@Pants-of-dog

This is pointless, what you are doing is everything you can to avoid a conclusion that supports the status quo and a system you do not like. This is the problem, because I'm looking for a policy debate consensus to the benefit of the country. You retreating into insisting on myself disproving the original or alternative claim, reassigning the burden of proof, is a sign this discussion has been exhausted and at its ends, and you are only interested in fatiguing your ideological enemies in a power-game.

To recap, your original argument is that Trump's zero tolerance policy is causing family separation. I have shown this is objectively untrue, those who cross illegally are prosecuted and their children are separated because they cannot be kept in criminal detainment. Asylum seekers who are not charged with anything are separated because their children cannot be kept in immigration detainment for longer than twenty days. This has to do with court settlements outside of the executive branch that the legislative one must change. Your next claim that the Republicans have not been doing anything is false, I point to the Trump EO and the house immigration bills.

Your claim that "catch and release" is not an issue has also been showed to be untrue, as I have cited in the GAO and DoJ reports at the start of this debate. I have also proven illegal crossings have risen.

At this point, you are just doing everything to can to defend the release of people into the country, because this is about a greater ideological and cultural battle to you. I am not interested in this. I have shown the relationship of the zero tolerance policy to family separation and the reality of the "catch and release" loophole. You have just been making up excuses for a broken system and shifting blame ever since, because your ideological bias precludes you from accepting you are wrong in the context of this policy question. Your lack of integrity is further evidenced by the fact you are simultaneously proposing solutions to the asylum seeking crisis then dishonestly trying bog down the opposing position that shares the same belief about the causes of the crisis, poverty and crime. It resembles gaslighting.

The progression your replies reveals what I'm debating is dissonance to protect belief in historical justice, which is fine and to some degree I respect it, but it renders this debate into a power game that your Marxist philosophy sees our political system as. Again, this is fine and I'm not insulting you, but you are wasting my time by viewing this discussion as that power game. You are interested in progressive gains and dishonestly 'debating' (procedurally rationalizing) to reach these ends. I do not want to deal with that directional motivation destroying the integrity of the discussion.

This is evidenced by the fact you have rejected my offer of compromise, which is passage through port of entry and detainment pending adjudication. Since you have demonstrated no interest in the status quo, I see no point in debating anything that might lead to a conclusion supporting it with this medium ground. As a result, I'm just going to ignore you for failing up to this point to support SO's original argument and debunk mine and shifting the topic to issues of race and class. We can agree to disagree on socialist ideas of race and class and therefore defense of illegal immigration.

[Stormsmith]

children are always separated from their parents if their parents are arrested, I don't see why the same wouldn't be true of border crossers who are committing a crime simply by crossing the borders in an illegal way, and if they are asylum seekers, which often cannot established until after they have already made such a border violation, it only makes sense that the government presumes them guilty of the crime of illegal immigration based on the apparent facts until asylum status can be determined as valid, just like if I was taken by police into custody because I was witnessed shooting at someone with a gun. Once I was taken into custody I would separated from my kids until they determined if I was within my rights to be shooting at that person, if I was I would be released and reunited with my kids.

I don't see how this should be any different.

Otherwise, anytime a parent is presumed to be guilty of a crime, they should not be separated from their children until it has been concluded by the investigation that the parent was guilty.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

All these idiots want to abolish ice and borders, i'll agree if they abolish all police, child protective services, and all gun regulations.

Hell, just abolish the state altogether and let people invite whoever they want onto their own property and shoot whoever trespasses.

Because in addition to Dr Lee's well stated points, in most domestic cases infants are put with their single moms and older children may still have access to the remaining parent or grandparents or aunts or uncles. And there's vistors day. In contrast, these kids of asylem-seekers have no one, not even a crabby neighbour. The difference between the two positions is critical. We don't go around destroying children for the sins of the fathers or mothers of our fellow citizens because it's bloody well immoral. And if we did, it would be bloody expensive because odds are, since the phenomenon is well understood, the kids would sue. And because the phenomena is well known and understood, it would be expected that anyone who attempted to employ such tactics as using dog kennels in the dessert or secreting children hundreds if not thousands of miles away to freak out both the parents of these little victims and the parents of future asylem-seekers have failed to do their due diligence.

The annoying thing is Trump, the billionaire who barely pays taxes won't foot the bill for his cruel hubris, but the regular citizen might.

[Conscript]

The children are given to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which prioritizes placing them in the care of a relative.

People could always just enter legally, instead of crossing the border and using the complications of children to be released and bypass a regulatory system. At some point with the development of the world market and the free flow of goods and people, the exploitation of asylum law crafted with WW2 in mind will be addressed by people who want social stability over erosion of the cultural and political relevance of the nation-state. The appeals to liberal values falter on this ground, given that liberty is based on order, virtue, and sense of shared identity and future rather the abolition of social constructs and liberation from social responsibility.

This is why the left's appeals to Western liberalism and family values is dishonest. Neither support their case.

[anarchist23]

Trump is creating a "hostile environment" for immigrant families to scare prospective immigrant families from attempting to cross into the USA.

A 15-month-old baby who came to symbolise the US government’s draconian policy of separating immigrant families did not recognise his parents when they were reunited in Honduras, his tearful mother has said.
Adalicia Montecinos said her son, Johan, had “suffered everything that we have been suffering”, after spending five months at an Arizona shelter, after being separated at the Texas border from his father who was deported.
“I kept saying ‘Johan, Johan’, and he started to cry,” Montecinos said.
But Johan soon warmed to his parents, laughing as he received kisses outside a centre where they concluded his final legal paperwork before heading home
Montecinos said she could not be happier to have her son back but was angry that he had been kept from her for months, and she’d been forced to watch him grow up via video.
“I will never see my son walk for the first time, or celebrate his first birthday. That’s what I lost, those memories every mom cherishes and tells their children years later.”
Johan’s case triggered international uproar when earlier this year the Associated Press reported his appearance in a US courtroom.
“I never thought they could be so cruel,” said Johan’s father, Rolando Antonio Bueso Castillo, 37, who had sought entry to the US in search of a better life, determined that his children would not grow up in the same poverty that he had endured since dropping out of the fourth grade to sell burritos to help his single mother support him and his four siblings.
Rolando’s younger brother left the mountains of central Honduras for the US seven years ago and was thriving in Maryland with his wife and children. His sister had followed, and had also done well, the Associated Press reported. Their eldest brother was killed in a drive-by shooting in San Pedro Sula, one of Latin America’s most dangerous cities.
Children who were found crossing the US-Mexico border illegally at a processing centre in McAllen, Texas, after being separated from their parents.
Rolando, who earned $10 a day as a bus driver, was well aware of the dangers of crossing Mexico. Scores of Central Americans have fallen to their deaths jumping on trains or been murdered, kidnapped, robbed or raped on their way to the US.
But he paid a smuggler $6,000 (£4,590) out of the money his brother had sent him and packed five baby onesies, three jackets, a baby blanket, lotion, nappies, bottles and cans of formula mik for the clandestine trip.
The plan was for Adalicia – in her first trimester of pregnancy – to stay behind and work at her market stall selling baseball hats with the view to joining them a few months later.
Father and son had made it as far as Tampico, Mexico, 300 miles from the Texas border, when the plan started to unravel. The smuggler drove them into a warehouse and told them to board a tractor trailer filled with scores of other parents and children from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Peru.
Rolando and Johan spent three days locked in the trailer.
“We were carried like meat, but we had no choice by then,” Rolando said.
In the Mexican border city of Reynosa, they boarded a makeshift raft and floated across the Rio Grande to the US. They trudged through the Texas brush until a US border patrol agent spotted them and asked them where they were going.
Rolando said his response was simple: “We’re going to search for the American dream.”
The pair were taken to a detention centre were they were held in a cell cordoned off by a chain-link fence and where they slept on a mattress under a thin, reflective blanket. Rolando said he had to ask for three days before he was allowed to bathe Johan, who was covered with dirt. Initially, Rolando thought that at the worst he and his son would be deported.
But on the fifth day, immigration officers said they were taking him to an office for questioning and an agent removed Johan from his father’s arms. It would be the last time they saw each other for five months.
Rolando, who has apparently attempted to enter the US four times, spent 22 days locked up in different detention centres along the Texas border, knowing nothing of what had happened to his son and with no money to call his wife to tell her what had happened. Upon being deported he was told his son would follow in two weeks. But months passed.
On Friday he would not say whether he would attempt another entry.
“They broke something in me over there,” he said. “This was never my son’s fault. Why did he have to be punished?”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ns-parents

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

This is pointless, what you are doing is everything you can to avoid a conclusion that supports the status quo and a system you do not like. This is the problem, because I'm looking for a policy debate consensus to the benefit of the country. You retreating into insisting on myself disproving the original or alternative claim, reassigning the burden of proof, is a sign this discussion has been exhausted and at its ends, and you are only interested in fatiguing your ideological enemies in a power-game.

I have no idea why you think I would be interested in supporting the status quo or a system I do not like, or care about the benefits to the USA. This whole problem exists becuase the status quo is a system that is set up for the benefit of US companies at the expense of Latinos.

I just find it is amusing when someone tries to shift the burden of proof by incorrectly claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative.

To recap, your original argument is that Trump's zero tolerance policy is causing family separation. I have shown this is objectively untrue, those who cross illegally are prosecuted and their children are separated because they cannot be kept in criminal detainment. Asylum seekers who are not charged with anything are separated because their children cannot be kept in immigration detainment for longer than twenty days. This has to do with court settlements outside of the executive branch that the legislative one must change. Your next claim that the Republicans have not been doing anything is false, I point to the Trump EO and the house immigration bills.

You claim that those who cross illegally are prosecuted and their children are separated because they cannot be kept in criminal detainment.

Do you see how this actually supports the claim that Trump's zero tolerance policy is causing family separation?

You are literally describing how Trump's zero tolerance policy is causing family separation when you claim that those who cross illegally are prosecuted and their children are separated because they cannot be kept in criminal detainment.

Your claim that "catch and release" is not an issue has also been showed to be untrue, as I have cited in the GAO and DoJ reports at the start of this debate. I have also proven illegal crossings have risen.

For the third or fourth time, please provide the actual evidence, or a link to a previous post where you provided said evidence.

At this point, you are just doing everything to can to defend the release of people into the country, because this is about a greater ideological and cultural battle to you. I am not interested in this. I have shown the relationship of the zero tolerance policy to family separation and the reality of the "catch and release" loophole. You have just been making up excuses for a broken system and shifting blame ever since, because your ideological bias precludes you from accepting you are wrong in the context of this policy question. Your lack of integrity is further evidenced by the fact you are simultaneously proposing solutions to the asylum seeking crisis then dishonestly trying bog down the opposing position that shares the same belief about the causes of the crisis, poverty and crime. It resembles gaslighting.

Please note that I have explicitly proposed solutions that have nothing to do with releasing people into your country. I do not know if you deliberately ignoring this in order to accuse me of this strawman, or if you honestly misread my posts, or if you are simply calling me a liar.

It does not matter, since you are not addressing my actual argument in any of those three cases.

The progression your replies reveals what I'm debating is dissonance to protect belief in historical justice, which is fine and to some degree I respect it, but it renders this debate into a power game that your Marxist philosophy sees our political system as. Again, this is fine and I'm not insulting you, but you are wasting my time by viewing this discussion as that power game. You are interested in progressive gains and dishonestly 'debating' (procedurally rationalizing) to reach these ends. I do not want to deal with that directional motivation destroying the integrity of the discussion.

This is evidenced by the fact you have rejected my offer of compromise, which is passage through port of entry and detainment pending adjudication. Since you have demonstrated no interest in the status quo, I see no point in debating anything that might lead to a conclusion supporting it with this medium ground. As a result, I'm just going to ignore you for failing up to this point to support SO's original argument and debunk mine and shifting the topic to issues of race and class. We can agree to disagree on socialist ideas of race and class and therefore defense of illegal immigration.

Since I never argued against passage through port of entry and detainment pending adjudication, I will assume you have misread.

Nor have I discussed race and class.

The closest I came to that was to point out Trump is not doing anything about US neoliberal practices in Latin America.

[Conscript]

I have no idea why you think I would be interested in supporting the status quo or a system I do not like, or care about the benefits to the USA. This whole problem exists becuase the status quo is a system that is set up for the benefit of US companies at the expense of Latinos.

Which is why I am not taking your opinion seriously when you try to step into the policy debate and broaden it into an ideological conflict. You're dishonestly advocating for a side you don't even support, because your ideas are outside of the realm of the national dialogue. When that side is debunked, you shift to the wider subject you were originally interested in once we move on to who deserves blame for a broken system.

It's a stupid debate.

I just find it is amusing when someone tries to shift the burden of proof by incorrectly claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative.

The burden of proof that refugees are persecuted does not lie on me, this is the original claim. "Prove they are not persecuted" and "prove that our ports of entry are not refusing everyone" is not an argument.

This is your dishonest debating tactic, because after your entrance into the discussion you decided to selectively contextualize to this debate how we are defining original claim in order to reframe it as mine. You then ask me to prove something that, compared to the original positive one, is an order of magnitude more difficult knowing any proof of the negative only needs a small bit of substance in the doubt cast on it to suggest any semblance of existence, and thus failure of the proof.

This is so you can claim a result that the default assumption, and not the original claim, is that Central Americans are persecuted and that the ports of entry are not permitting entrance, without having proven either. You are behaving in an intellectually lazy and dishonest fashion.

Since the claim that refugees are persecuted precedes our debate and is the original veil for why illegal entry should not be prosecuted, and the claim that ports of entry are not functioning as they should is the other original leveraged against my proposed alternative, this debate will not move forward until you substantiate the original, positive claim.

We are not working backwards, and if you are not trolling you will substantiate the above.

Do you see how this actually supports the claim that Trump's zero tolerance policy is causing family separation?

You are shifting again. Your original claim ranged from either Trump having a 'family separation policy' or that prosecution is a means of deterrence. I've debunked both of these. Family separation is a byproduct of prosecution or detainment because of regulations outside of the realm of the executive branch, you cannot just decide what happens to families that cross the border. Deterrence through prosecution is impossible since you can just go to a port of entry and file an asylum claim.

You are literally describing how Trump's zero tolerance policy is causing family separation when you claim that those who cross illegally are prosecuted and their children are separated because they cannot be kept in criminal detainment.

I can also describe how prosecution for every other crime that leads to criminal detainment causes family separation, which is again not an executive decision. It sounds like your problem is enforcing the law so as to close a loophole as part of an overall selective philosophy of jurisprudence, one distorted by ideological biases.

Unless someone is forcing a person to cross the border illegally, I don't see why we're blaming anyone but the charged here for the cause of family separation, especially when we have ports of entry for this reason. Blaming the law makes no sense, blaming the executive branch which doesn't create the law makes even less sense. As far as I can tell, we are to give certain groups special treatment because of the asymmetry of progressivism meant to balance for historic or current inequity.

If you could be honest for a second, you can admit this is your philosophy of the law and you don't believe the state should prosecute when it reinforces this inequity, not play this game of reassigning blame for the cause of family separation to either the state or, more absurdly, the executive branch.

For the third or fourth time, please provide the actual evidence, or a link to a previous post where you provided said evidence.

You have exhausted all good faith in this discussion once you resorted to the above petulant tactics to win the debate without having debunked or proven anything, and only seek victory through exhausting the other side.

I have linked both reports twice now, once to SO in the discussion you replied to and started this, and once again to you. I'm not playing this game with you.

Please note that I have explicitly proposed solutions that have nothing to do with releasing people into your country.

You have proposed the status quo, just with some ideological salt in order to reassign blame for action taken in response to its broken nature. You want to prevent deportation if there's an asylum claim as well as house and process all asylum seekers, but on the condition that if it cannot be afforded either in total or fast enough, we should be opposed to any sort of detainment if it's a family unit because of separation-stipulating regulations that are, as I said, outside of the realm of the executive branch.

In other words, you have no real solution to the loophole and you're just here to complain that America doesn't throw enough money at the problem when the system is broken. This is to excuse illegal entry which, per your statements on neoliberalism, American racism, ports of entry, etc., is a phenomenon that is our fault, and therefore executive action to close the loophole is an unacceptable solution perpetuating a power dynamic.

This gets back to the first bit of my post. You are not defending a policy position, you are defending an ideological one meant to correct for a wider perceived inequity. I'm not interested in that debate.

Given that the debate has degenerated into an ideological conflict in the form of who deserves blame for a broken system in order to show the illegitimacy of a executive action on it, and that we seemingly cannot agree on burden of proof for the claim about persecution and ports of entry, I reiterate the how this debate has reached an inconclusive endpoint.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which is why I am not taking your opinion seriously when you try to step into the policy debate and broaden it into an ideological conflict. You're dishonestly advocating for a side you don't even support, because your ideas are outside of the realm of the national dialogue. When that side is debunked, you shift to the wider subject you were originally interested in once we move on to who deserves blame for a broken system.

It's a stupid debate.

Wow. Your deep misunderstanding of this discussion and my position is incredible.

But irrelevant, just like your accusations about me being a liar.

The burden of proof that refugees are persecuted does not lie on me, this is the original claim. "Prove they are not persecuted" and "prove that our ports of entry are not refusing everyone" is not an argument.

This is your dishonest debating tactic, because after your entrance into the discussion you decided to selectively contextualize to this debate how we are defining original claim in order to reframe it as mine. You then ask me to prove something that, compared to the original positive one, is an order of magnitude more difficult knowing any proof of the negative only needs a small bit of substance in the doubt cast on it to suggest any semblance of existence, and thus failure of the proof.

This is so you can claim a result that the default assumption, and not the original claim, is that Central Americans are persecuted and that the ports of entry are not permitting entrance, without having proven either. You are behaving in an intellectually lazy and dishonest fashion.

Since the claim that refugees are persecuted precedes our debate and is the original veil for why illegal entry should not be prosecuted, and the claim that ports of entry are not functioning as they should is the other original leveraged against my proposed alternative, this debate will not move forward until you substantiate the original, positive claim.

We are not working backwards, and if you are not trolling you will substantiate the above.

I have already explained several times exact”y how you are misunderstanding and misuing burden of proof.

You made the claim that Central Americans do not suffer from persecution. You have refused to provide evidence. I have no idea why you think we should treat this as anything more than unsupported speculation.

On the other hand, I claimed that border agents are refusing to allow asylum seekers to access legal points of entry. I provided evidence for my claim.

None of this whining about me will change these facts.

You are shifting again. Your original claim ranged from either Trump having a 'family separation policy' or that prosecution is a means of deterrence. I've debunked both of these. Family separation is a byproduct of prosecution or detainment because of regulations outside of the realm of the executive branch, you cannot just decide what happens to families that cross the border. Deterrence through prosecution is impossible since you can just go to a port of entry and file an asylum claim.

First of all, it is you who claimed that this prosecution was a form of deterrence, and then you backed away from the claim.

Mind you, it is true that the Trump administration had previously discussed separating children from their families as a way of deterring asylum seekers:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr ... eb-n884371

WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration as a way to deter asylum-seekers, according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.

Notes from a town hall held for Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officers on Feb. 2, 2017, show that the agency's asylum chief, John Lafferty, told the officers they might have to "hold mothers longer" and "hold children in HHR/ORR," an acronym for facilities for children run by HHS.

Notes from the meeting were first obtained by MSNBC.

The Trump administration has repeatedly maintained that the increasing number of children being separated from their mothers at the U.S. southern border is not a policy of its own making but just a tragic byproduct of enforcing the law against illegal border crossers.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said on Twitter Sunday: "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."

She added that asylum-seekers would be protected from separations as they always had been: "For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law."

But in the town hall two weeks after President Donald Trump's inauguration, Lafferty laid out a number of policies specifically intended to lower the number of immigrants claiming asylum. According to the notes, he provided attendees with the latest asylum numbers, which were at their highest point in 20 years in 2016, and then said the administration was "in the process of reviewing" a number of policies, including separation of parents and children, to try to curb those numbers.

Also, please note that previous administrations did not consistently prosecute families who entered the US illegally.

I can also describe how prosecution for every other crime that leads to criminal detainment causes family separation, which is again not an executive decision. It sounds like your problem is enforcing the law so as to close a loophole as part of an overall selective philosophy of jurisprudence, one distorted by ideological biases.

Again, my position is that the USA should stop prosecuting asylum seekers as if they were illegal immigrants.

Crossing a border is a misdemeanour and does not automatically mean the offender should be imprisoned.

Unless someone is forcing a person to cross the border illegally, I don't see why we're blaming anyone but the charged here for the cause of family separation, especially when we have ports of entry for this reason. Blaming the law makes no sense, blaming the executive branch which doesn't create the law makes even less sense. As far as I can tell, we are to give certain groups special treatment because of the asymmetry of progressivism meant to balance for historic or current inequity.

Yes, many of these asylum seekers are forced to cross the border illegally.

People can’t choose where they cross. They have no choice but to break the law. We really need to hammer away on this point. We heard it in both Yuma and Tucson:

Organized crime has had a lock on cross-border migration for at least the past 10 years. (Building border fencing made it easier for organized crime, because far fewer border miles are easy to cross, creating bottlenecks where cross-border activity is easier to control.) It’s difficult and dangerous to attempt to cross the border on your own, without a paid, cartel-approved smuggler.
This means that virtually all asylum-seeking families have to pay a smuggler.
The “correct,” legal way to cross the border and ask for asylum is to do so at an official port of entry. Under zero tolerance, this is the only method by which asylum-seekers can cross to avoid arrest and possible family separation.
Smugglers don’t care about the “legal” way to cross the border. Families have to cross where the smuggler tells them to. That would be in the territory where organized crime allows the smuggler to operate. That territory probably doesn’t include a port of entry.
So asylum-seeking families are forced to cross the border illegally, in Arizona often by climbing the fence and presenting themselves to Border Patrol.

If you could be honest for a second,

Your habit of calling me a liar is both immature and irrelevant.

you can admit this is your philosophy of the law and you don't believe the state should prosecute when it reinforces this inequity, not play this game of reassigning blame for the cause of family separation to either the state or, more absurdly, the executive branch.

Your strawmen are irrelevant.

You have exhausted all good faith in this discussion once you resorted to the above petulant tactics to win the debate without having debunked or proven anything, and only seek victory through exhausting the other side.

You spend a lot of time whining about imagined slights you think I made.

I have linked both reports twice now, once to SO in the discussion you replied to and started this, and once again to you. I'm not playing this game with you.

Please provide a link to where you posted this evidence. Thank you.

You have proposed the status quo, just with some ideological salt in order to reassign blame for action taken in response to its broken nature. You want to prevent deportation if there's an asylum claim as well as house and process all asylum seekers, but on the condition that if it cannot be afforded either in total or fast enough, we should be opposed to any sort of detainment if it's a family unit because of separation-stipulating regulations that are, as I said, outside of the realm of the executive branch.

In other words, you have no real solution to the loophole and you're just here to complain that America doesn't throw enough money at the problem when the system is broken. This is to excuse illegal entry which, per your statements on neoliberalism, American racism, ports of entry, etc., is a phenomenon that is our fault, and therefore executive action to close the loophole is an unacceptable solution perpetuating a power dynamic.

This gets back to the first bit of my post. You are not defending a policy position, you are defending an ideological one meant to correct for a wider perceived inequity. I'm not interested in that debate.

Given that the debate has degenerated into an ideological conflict in the form of who deserves blame for a broken system in order to show the illegitimacy of a executive action on it, and that we seemingly cannot agree on burden of proof for the claim about persecution and ports of entry, I reiterate the how this debate has reached an inconclusive endpoint.

Your strawmen are irrelevant.

[Drlee]

I can also describe how prosecution for every other crime that leads to criminal detainment causes family separation, which is again not an executive decision. It sounds like your problem is enforcing the law so as to close a loophole as part of an overall selective philosophy of jurisprudence, one distorted by ideological biases.

This is objectively untrue though. There is no requirement under the law that illegal border crossers be charged with anything. There are procedures in place to simply put them across the border. There is also the so-called catch-and-release. They could be released with monitoring such as an ankle bracelet. While I am not unsympathetic to the notion that catch-and-release offers little deterrent it could well be the best choice for families. Particularly those with only one parent.

[blackjack21]

There is no requirement under the law that illegal border crossers be charged with anything.

Well, that assumes that the executive has no requirement to faithfully execute the laws. If you make that argument, you can say by extension that there is no requirement under the law that anyone who breaks any law must be charged with a crime. What exactly is the point of the law if it is not enforced? One of Western Civilization's great accomplishments with border enforcement was the eradication or near eradication of diseases. We now see the resurgence of diseases that were once essentially wiped out in the United States, like tuberculosis. That aspect of modernism goes away with open borders.

While I am not unsympathetic to the notion that catch-and-release offers little deterrent it could well be the best choice for families.

Law enforcement does not optimize for what is in the best interests of the family of the law breaker(s). Why should that sort of consideration begin with illegal aliens? Again, keep in mind that the zeitgeist putting Trump in office is that the political class routinely bends over backwards for illegal aliens in a way that it will not do for its domestic population. Is it in the best interests of Paul Manafort's family that he be separated from his family and kept in solitary confinement while awaiting a trial? Frankly, if that's how they treat Paul Manafort, there is no reason that equal justice would not do the same thing to illegal aliens. They are a much greater flight risk than almost any other criminal class, simply because the establishment wants to exploit cheap labor.

[Drlee]

Well, that assumes that the executive has no requirement to faithfully execute the laws.

The law does not require that illegal entrants be detained. You, and just about everyone else on the right forgets that congress made this just about the most minor of offenses. They made the penalty for littering in a national park much more severe.

If you make that argument, you can say by extension that there is no requirement under the law that anyone who breaks any law must be charged with a crime.

No you can't. Police and prosecutors make the decision not to charge people for much worse offenses every day. If you ever talked yourself out of a speeding ticket you are one of them.

What exactly is the point of the law if it is not enforced?

The law can be enforced without arrest or prosecution. Often just the threat of arrest enforces the law. Again. The police frequently choose not to charge people and very frequently make the decision whether to ticket someone or take them to jail.

One of Western Civilization's great accomplishments with border enforcement was the eradication or near eradication of diseases. We now see the resurgence of diseases that were once essentially wiped out in the United States, like tuberculosis. That aspect of modernism goes away with open borders.

You are infringing on my territory now. And you are wrong. Immigration enforcement is not the same as border health enforcement which, oh by the way, is an ancient practice. Not a new one.

Most of the resurgence of old diseases is due to the abjectly stupid people often referred to as antivaxers. Their stupidity reaches criminal levels.

Then you have fun trolling with TB; a disease you obviously do not understand. Under Trump there have been dramatic cuts in prevention. Huge. Most cases are confined to four states. Of those born abroad who are infected, the overwhelming majority are Asians who have entered legally as temporary workers. I am all for eliminating foreign temporary workers in all but the rarest of circumstances but it has nothing to do with disease.

And, to put icing on your cake, the actual increase is very small. Within the statistical error. You need not fear even though you do live in an Asian rich environment and work in a high tech industry rife with temporary foreign workers. The rate among whites is .5 per 100,000 people. You are 20 times more likely to get HIV. Don't even ask me about our old friend Treponema pallidum. Your city is teeming with it.

[Beren]

My favourite moment is when he seems to have decided he needs some water (at 0:44), then he starts moving his head in the direction of the bottle immediately.