Trumps separating Central American children from their parents. Is this acceptable? - Page 48 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14933625
Conscript wrote:Nope, I said it was about deterring 'them' in the sense who we were talking about in the national debate. That is, people who cross the border illegally and then are prosecuted regardless of whether they made an asylum claim or not.

Nope, it doesn't make sense as a strategy to reduce the number of asylum claims, because as I've said they can just go through ports of entry. There's no way to stop asylum seeking.

I like order at the border and so did Obama and other past presidents. None of them have agreed to this interpretation of international treaties before.

I realize you do not respect national sovereignty or borders as a socialist internationalist with some Marxist leanings, but if you cross the border illegally you should be prosecuted, not allowed to make a bogus asylum claim that then gets you released pending a court date 40% of people don't show up to.

Detainment is not arrest. Change the Flores Consent Decree if you don't want separations.

I've never applauded their children being taken away, all I've said is that detainment is preferable to release and subsequent high in absentia rates. Separation is an unfortunate byproduct of this that needs to be changed through legislation, especially now that the Trump EO has been rejected.

The people being separated and focused on in media were a product of the increasing border crossings and captures I cited at the start of this debate, the demographic of people crossing having provably changed to include more accompanied children. The couple thousand children cited as separated are a product of that, not asylum seekers at large. This is not up for debate or your manipulation of it.

You tried to shift the debate from the prosecution of those who entered in between ports of entry to the general detainment of both in order to make a false claim that the government is 'arresting' and therefore separating everyone who claims asylum.

Overstayed visa, not an arrest for seeking asylum

Lawsuit is about detainment, not arrest of anyone.

Another overstayed visa.

You have failed to prove that the government is arresting asylum seekers at large, not people who cross the border illegally then file an asylum claim.

You don't get to bitch about underfunding causing a backlog and then claim there's no loophole present with subsequent releases.

Also, I find it amusing you're integrating this rhetoric about treaties now that I educated you about it.

I described it as a way to a) avoid prosecution for illegal entry b) then be released into the country pending adjudication of your claim, which as we've agreed will take a while.

I don't think you know what that word means. I mentioned Obama to show an evolution in the law in response to his own policies, which set the stage for family separation as a byproduct of detainment or prosecution.

Because it's not an argument against prosecution and closing the "catch and release" loophole, it's an argument to make ports of entry function as they should. We don't know the scale of it enough to make a claim that it's a forbidden alternative (it wouldn't just be reported on in a few articles by small media outlets if it was), and it's illegal for border control agents to do this.


1. If you are no longer arguing that this deliberate confusion of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is not an attempt at detering asylum seekers, fine.

This is still a deliberate attempt to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in order to treat the former as criminals and therefore justify the destruction of families.

(@Kaiserschmarrn, here is another conservative deliberately confusing economic migrnats and asylum seekers, something that you accused progressives, academics, and the media of doing. Also please note that this deliberate confusion is also part of Trump policy.)

2. Arresting asylum seekers like this is still in contravention of international treaties that the US has signed, even if Obama also did it (which is irrelevant).

3. You obviously have no idea what my opinion on immigration is as a socialist. I find it amusing that you think you do.

4. Again, I never claimed that detainment and arrest are the same thing. That does not change the fact that the Trump administration is arresting asylum seekers and then taking away their children because of the arrest.

5. Since Republicans have a majority in the legislatures, they ciuld easily change the legislation. Why have they not done so? How would they supposedly change it? Would it rectify the problem of family separation?

6. So we agree that they are arresting asylum seekers for a variety of reasons, including illegal entry. Do you have any evidence that Trump is allowing anyone at all to claim asylum by actually accessing legal points of entry, etc?

7. Please present evidence for the claim that a significant percentage of asylum seekers are using the asylum process as a loophole for illegal immigration.

The burden of proof for the claim that Central Americans are fleeing persecution is not on me, it's on you. This is after you just asked me to prove a negative. You are a terrible debater.


https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosop ... gative.pdf

    But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes- sional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

So, not only are you refusing to provide evidence for your claim that Central America is free from persecution, but you also seem to be confusing proof and evidence, and incorrectly assuming that you cannot prove a negative.

So, if we assume that i am a terrible debater, please note that it was a terrible debater who had to teach you that:

A) a negative can be proven, and
B) proof and evidence are two different things.

Let me know when you have evidence that Central America has no persecution.
#14933654
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. If you are no longer arguing that this deliberate confusion of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is not an attempt at detering asylum seekers, fine.


I never argued such. Keep talking to yourself.

This is still a deliberate attempt to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in order to treat the former as criminals and therefore justify the destruction of families.


Detainment is not arrest and prosecution.

You are still stuck on this point despite it being debunked since the start of this discussion. You can not prosecute asylum seekers as a means of deterrence, since they could just circumvent that and enter through a port of entry, and because of that you cannot confuse asylum seekers with illegal immigrants. Finally, there is no policy of family separation, there is a policy of prosecuting illegal crossers and detaining asylum seekers pending adjudication. Your problem is with this, not a court settlement on holding accompanied minors entailing a byproduct of this policy is separation.

2. Arresting asylum seekers like this is still in contravention of international treaties that the US has signed, even if Obama also did it (which is irrelevant).


National interests take precedent, sorry. We live in the real world.

3. You obviously have no idea what my opinion on immigration is as a socialist. I find it amusing that you think you do.


I can guess the immigration position of a Canadian socialist that rants about European colonialism all the time.

4. Again, I never claimed that detainment and arrest are the same thing. That does not change the fact that the Trump administration is arresting asylum seekers and then taking away their children because of the arrest.


He is arresting people who crossed the border illegally, their asylum seeking status is and should be irrelevant. If you're actually fleeing persecution and not simply trying to leverage a defensive asylum claim to avoid deportation and then exploit the backlog of a system to be released on your merry way, then you can go through a port of entry.

5. Since Republicans have a majority in the legislatures, they ciuld easily change the legislation. Why have they not done so? How would they supposedly change it? Would it rectify the problem of family separation?


...they need Democratic votes to make it happen.

Yes it would.

6. So we agree that they are arresting asylum seekers for a variety of reasons, including illegal entry. Do you have any evidence that Trump is allowing anyone at all to claim asylum by actually accessing legal points of entry, etc?


I don't need to prove such a thing, it's the modus operandi of the DHS. It's up to you to prove otherwise. It'd further be straight up illegal to turn away anyone at a point of entry that wants to file asylum.

7. Please present evidence for the claim that a significant percentage of asylum seekers are using the asylum process as a loophole for illegal immigration.


I already cited the parallel between rising asylum claims, border crossings, and in absentia rates at the beginning of the debate. I am not interested in your arbitrary standards for 'significant', by the way. I am only interested in establishing that there is a case at all, as a matter of public interest and in accordance with polling supporting stricter immigration standards. Seen here (Q14) (2)

Let me know when you have evidence that Central America has no persecution.


"Prove they don't" is not a valid argument when I ask for proof to support the claim that these asylum claims are valid and not simply about fleeing poverty and crime. That was the initial claim by both the asylum seekers and their advocates. The burden of proof rests on you, the immigration advocate, not me. I have no need to listen and believe and prove a negative because you can't be bothered.

When you offer proof that asylum seekers have valid fears of persecution, this debate will move forward. Until then, you're just being petulant per usual because you're intellectually lazy. You can no more be bothered to substantiate, cite, and write more than a line supporting the original claims on this persecution issue than you could be assed to know the facts about the legal complexities of this issue (international treaties, 14th amendment, 2015-16 ruling on Flores Consent Decree etc.) and the demographic trends (in absentia, number of accompanied children, rise in asylum claims and backlog, etc.).

I had to teach you all of that, and you still want to shift the burden of proof out of your own laziness. Your behavior is contemptible and this discussion has been nothing more than lecturing you on the basic facts you could just go research and you sophistically asking "but why can't we just let them in?", "so how isn't it the fault of white racism?", or "well, prove they're not persecuted". I'm fine with you asking questions and reaching out to someone ideologically different than me to reach a consensus, I am not fine with lazy debating or achieving victory through fatigue.

There's a great deal of ideological and sophistic distortion at work whenever I try to discuss objective matters with you, as you spend your posts trying to make two ends connect and achieve cognitive dissonance to safeguard the baselessness of your semi-Marxist worldviews. All I sense in talking to you is a fear of something that supports a right-wing talking point being true and a desperation to find a condition with which to falsify it, or failing that make some moral appeal about imperialism, racism, or whatever. I have no patience for this, it's quite tiring because all you do is stifle discussion thanks to this kind of thinking.

While I don't think you do it intentionally, if you keep treating issues and policy debate as just battleground for ideological differences I'm just going to ignore you and wait for an opponent with a sense of rigor, established background knowledge, and less for strong ideological persuasions like that of a far-leftist.
#14933677
Conscript wrote:I never argued such. Keep talking to yourself.


Yes, you did, but since you now are rejecting your win argument, I do not care.

You are still deliberately confusing illegal immigrants with asylum seekers.

Detainment is not arrest and prosecution.

You are still stuck on this point despite it being debunked since the start of this discussion. You can not prosecute asylum seekers as a means of deterrence, since they could just circumvent that and enter through a port of entry, and because of that you cannot confuse asylum seekers with illegal immigrants. Finally, there is no policy of family separation, there is a policy of prosecuting illegal crossers and detaining asylum seekers pending adjudication. Your problem is with this, not a court settlement on holding accompanied minors entailing a byproduct of this policy is separation.


Your ability to ignore my points and repeat your irrelevant criticisms is noted.

This is still a deliberate attempt to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in order to treat the former as criminals and therefore justify the destruction of families.

National interests take precedent, sorry. We live in the real world.


Please explain how not respecting your international obligations is necessary for national interests. Thanks.

I can guess the immigration position of a Canadian socialist that rants about European colonialism all the time.


Apparently not correctly, no.

He is arresting people who crossed the border illegally, their asylum seeking status is and should be irrelevant. If you're actually fleeing persecution and not simply trying to leverage a defensive asylum claim to avoid deportation and then exploit the backlog of a system to be released on your merry way, then you can go through a port of entry.


When you exaplin why Trump is arreting asylum seekers, you are agreeing with my claim that he is arewst8ng asylum seekers.

...they need Democratic votes to make it happen.

Yes it would.


No, that is not how majorities work.

Please explain why the Republicans are sitting on their hands, and also explain how this supposed legislation would fix the problems.

I don't need to prove such a thing, it's the modus operandi of the DHS. It's up to you to prove otherwise. It'd further be straight up illegal to turn away anyone at a point of entry that wants to file asylum.


So no evidence for the claim that asylum seekers are being allowed to access legal points of entry, while we do have evidence that theynare not being allowed to do so.

I already cited the parallel between rising asylum claims, border crossings, and in absentia rates at the beginning of the debate. I am not interested in your arbitrary standards for 'significant', by the way. I am only interested in establishing that there is a case at all, as a matter of public interest and in accordance with polling supporting stricter immigration standards. Seen here (Q14) (2)


Please quote the text that supoorts your claim. Thanks.

"Prove they don't" is not a valid argument when I ask for proof to support the claim that these asylum claims are valid and not simply about fleeing poverty and crime. That was the initial claim by both the asylum seekers and their advocates. The burden of proof rests on you, the immigration advocate, not me. I have no need to listen and believe and prove a negative because you can't be bothered.

When you offer proof that asylum seekers have valid fears of persecution, this debate will move forward. Until then, you're just being petulant per usual because you're intellectually lazy. You can no more be bothered to substantiate, cite, and write more than a line supporting the original claims on this persecution issue than you could be assed to know the facts about the legal complexities of this issue (international treaties, 14th amendment, 2015-16 ruling on Flores Consent Decree etc.) and the demographic trends (in absentia, number of accompanied children, rise in asylum claims and backlog, etc.).

I had to teach you all of that, and you still want to shift the burden of proof out of your own laziness. Your behavior is contemptible and this discussion has been nothing more than lecturing you on the basic facts you could just go research and you sophistically asking "but why can't we just let them in?", "so how isn't it the fault of white racism?", or "well, prove they're not persecuted". I'm fine with you asking questions and reaching out to someone ideologically different than me to reach a consensus, I am not fine with lazy debating or achieving victory through fatigue.

There's a great deal of ideological and sophistic distortion at work whenever I try to discuss objective matters with you, as you spend your posts trying to make two ends connect and achieve cognitive dissonance to safeguard the baselessness of your semi-Marxist worldviews. All I sense in talking to you is a fear of something that supports a right-wing talking point being true and a desperation to find a condition with which to falsify it, or failing that make some moral appeal about imperialism, racism, or whatever. I have no patience for this, it's quite tiring because all you do is stifle discussion thanks to this kind of thinking.

While I don't think you do it intentionally, if you keep treating issues and policy debate as just battleground for ideological differences I'm just going to ignore you and wait for an opponent with a sense of rigor, established background knowledge, and less for strong ideological persuasions like that of a far-leftist.


So no evidence.

Your claim thta there is no persecution in Central America is dismisied as the unsupported speculation that it is.

And a lack of knowledge about how debate works is not a valid reason to push the burden of proof onto me.
#14933789
I have posted this before and nobody will address it. So here it is plain and simple.

The treaties concerning asylum seekers are designed to handle a major migration of people from one region, across another country and into a third. They are asylum seekers when they have an individual threat, not a claim that that the gangs are out to get them.

NOW EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS FOR FUCK SAKE. ESPECIALLY YOU POD.

In addition, the persecution must be based on one of five grounds, including either your:

religion
race
nationality
political opinion, or
membership in a particular social group.

Persecution based on any other ground does not qualify for asylum. For example, someone might fear returning to his or her home country because an angry neighbor has threatened to take revenge over an old grudge, but that would not qualify the person for asylum.


Read that carefully. Is someone afraid of a narco gang fleeing because of their religion? No. Race? No. Nationality? No. Political opinion? No. Membership in a particular social group? No.

So these thousands of people claiming to be fleeing criminal gangs are NOT eligible for asylum under US law. Full stop.

Now let's stand back and reconsider what we are saying under US law.

International law? Here is the 1951 treaty that applies:

A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.


There is the Cartegena Declaration which would apply except for one thing. The US did not sign it. Wasn't even asked too.
#14933813
@Drlee

Can you please clarify how this affects my argument? Thanks.

As far as I can tell, this addresses my point about US obligations towards asylum seekers.

If that is the case, then I would reply that this does not contradict my point that the US has an obligation to not treat asylum seekers as criminals.

This, instead, addresses whether or not their application for asylum is successful, rather than the treatment of those who arrive in the US and plan to apply for asylum.

Imagine Jose and his family arrives in El Paso with the plan of applying for asylum. He (incorrectly) thinks they can apply for asylum because they are all allergic to burros. I am choosing a deliberately ridiculous example for the purposes of illustrating that they have no chance of being accepted as a refugee.

Regardless of whether or not the application is successful, Jose has certain rights as he walks towards the ICE office to report his and his family’s presence in the US and to start the application process. And one of these rights includes not being arrested and having his family torn apart.
#14933828
And one of these rights includes not being arrested and having his family torn apart.


No, we can detain them. An asylum claim is not and should not be a free pass to freely roam the country.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you did, but since you now are rejecting your win argument, I do not care.

You are still deliberately confusing illegal immigrants with asylum seekers.


Still talking to yourself, I see. I never argued anyone was confusing asylum seekers for illegals for the sake of deterring the former. That is impossible, since they can just enter through a port of entry.

The zero tolerance policy is to deter people who cross the border illegally. It cannot possibly deter asylum seekers.

This is still a deliberate attempt to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in order to treat the former as criminals and therefore justify the destruction of families.


I really think you have no idea what the hell you're even talking about anymore. You have repeated this and failed to explain how.

Asylum seekers who enter through port of entry get detained. Anyone who crosses the border illegally gets prosecuted.

Both are separated as families because we cannot hold children for more than 20 days in the former case, not can we hold them at all in the latter case.

What would you like us to do, exactly?

Please explain how not respecting your international obligations is necessary for national interests. Thanks.


It prevents us from enforcing the law.

When you exaplin why Trump is arreting asylum seekers, you are agreeing with my claim that he is arewst8ng asylum seekers.


He is arresting people who cross the border illegally, their status is irrelevant.

No, that is not how majorities work.


    This is a huge problem for any proposal’s future: Even if a bill passes the House, it will need the support of nine Senate Democrats, and President Trump’s signature, to become law. So why are Republicans pushing a proposal that appears doomed to fail?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ion-family

Please explain why the Republicans are sitting on their hands, and also explain how this supposed legislation would fix the problems.


It would allow us to keep the families together in detainment and bypass the stipulations of the 2016 ruling on the Flores Consent Decree.

So no evidence for the claim that asylum seekers are being allowed to access legal points of entry, while we do have evidence that theynare not being allowed to do so.


We have no evidence that they are being denied entry through a port to any significant degree. We have sporadic anecdotes from the past.

There is no reason to believe this is not an available avenue, and even if it was, it doesn't support your argument. It supports mine plus ensuring the legal function of the ports.

Please quote the text that supoorts your claim. Thanks.


Go back and look at my GAO and DOJ citations.

So no evidence.


It is not on me to prove that asylum seekers fears of persecution are valid.

Your claim thta there is no persecution in Central America is dismisied as the unsupported speculation that it is.


Actually, the speculation is on your part until you support it. Otherwise, I have to assume it's a bunk asylum claim.

And a lack of knowledge about how debate works is not a valid reason to push the burden of proof onto me.


You have no idea what you're talking about, that's all you've proven in this debate. Feel free to prove Central Americans are persecuted, the burden of proof is on an asylum seeker and their advocates like yourself.

Your idea that is my job to prove a negative here is backwards and, not to mention, impossible. You do not prove people are not persecuted. You prove the original claim of persecution to support the argument that the US is threatening the safety of an asylum seeker by deporting them back to a state that targets them.
#14933848
Imagine Jose and his family arrives in El Paso with the plan of applying for asylum. He (incorrectly) thinks they can apply for asylum because they are all allergic to burros. I am choosing a deliberately ridiculous example for the purposes of illustrating that they have no chance of being accepted as a refugee.

Regardless of whether or not the application is successful, Jose has certain rights as he walks towards the ICE office to report his and his family’s presence in the US and to start the application process. And one of these rights includes not being arrested and having his family torn apart.


If they do not meet the criteria as asylum seekers they can be turned away. And often are. If they enter illegally then claim asylum (for being allergic to burritos) they have already committed a crime.

Regardless of whether or not the application is successful, Jose has certain rights as he walks towards the ICE office to report his and his family’s presence in the US and to start the application process. And one of these rights includes not being arrested and having his family torn apart.


And this is where your argument fails. If he is in the US "walking toward the ICE office" he is an illegal entrant and guilty of a misdemeanor at best. One presents oneself at the port of entry to claim asylum.
If one does this and does not illegally enter the country, they are not arrested. Not now and not before.
#14933855
Drlee wrote:If they do not meet the criteria as asylum seekers they can be turned away.
That can only determined by the asylum process, and not the "judge"/border guard at the border crossing.
#14933873
Conscript wrote:No, we can detain them. An asylum claim is not and should not be a free pass to freely roam the country.


I never argued that the US cannot detain them. Please note that arrest and detainment are two different things.

Still talking to yourself, I see. I never argued anyone was confusing asylum seekers for illegals for the sake of deterring the former. That is impossible, since they can just enter through a port of entry.

The zero tolerance policy is to deter people who cross the border illegally. It cannot possibly deter asylum seekers.


I never said that you argued that people were confusing asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. Instead, I am arguing that you, Trump, and other conservatives are deliberately confusing these two separate groups.

I really think you have no idea what the hell you're even talking about anymore. You have repeated this and failed to explain how.

Asylum seekers who enter through port of entry get detained. Anyone who crosses the border illegally gets prosecuted.

Both are separated as families because we cannot hold children for more than 20 days in the former case, not can we hold them at all in the latter case.

What would you like us to do, exactly?


By automatically prosecuting asylum seekers for entering the country, the Trump administration is deliberately choosing to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants.

And when conservatives such as yourself uncritically accept it, you are making that same confusion.

Ideally, you would end neo-liberal practices in Latin America, legalise cocaine and marijuana, house all asylum seekers and their families in decent housing, and process their claims quickly.

It prevents us from enforcing the law.


So following the law prevents you from enforcing it?

The logical contradictions and disconnect from reality are amusing.

He is arresting people who cross the border illegally, their status is irrelevant.


Exactly. The Trump administration is arresting asylum seekers regardless of the fact that they are not illegal immigrants.

    This is a huge problem for any proposal’s future: Even if a bill passes the House, it will need the support of nine Senate Democrats, and President Trump’s signature, to become law. So why are Republicans pushing a proposal that appears doomed to fail?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ion-family


So the reason that the Republicans are not passing legislation that would reunite families is because they do not want to, according to that article.

Real family values party, there.

It would allow us to keep the families together in detainment and bypass the stipulations of the 2016 ruling on the Flores Consent Decree.


Please quote the text that supports your claim.

We have no evidence that they are being denied entry through a port to any significant degree. We have sporadic anecdotes from the past.

There is no reason to believe this is not an available avenue, and even if it was, it doesn't support your argument. It supports mine plus ensuring the legal function of the ports.


Please present evidence for your claims that asylum seekers are being allowed to access legal points of entry.

Go back and look at my GAO and DOJ citations.


Did you quote the text that supports your claims that this is a significant loophole for illegal immigrants?

It is not on me to prove that asylum seekers fears of persecution are valid.


You made the claim that Central Americans are not persecuted. It is on you to provide evidence to support that claim.

Actually, the speculation is on your part until you support it. Otherwise, I have to assume it's a bunk asylum claim.

You have no idea what you're talking about, that's all you've proven in this debate. Feel free to prove Central Americans are persecuted, the burden of proof is on an asylum seeker and their advocates like yourself.

Your idea that is my job to prove a negative here is backwards and, not to mention, impossible. You do not prove people are not persecuted. You prove the original claim of persecution to support the argument that the US is threatening the safety of an asylum seeker by deporting them back to a state that targets them.


I literally quoted a professor of philosophy who teaches logic and who said that it is possible to prove a negative.

Your apparent inability to read is not an argument.

---------------

Drlee wrote:If they do not meet the criteria as asylum seekers they can be turned away. And often are. If they enter illegally then claim asylum (for being allergic to burritos) they have already committed a crime.


Not necessarily, no.

Illegal entry can be treated as a civil offense instead of a criminal one. And before Blease put forth his racist law, it was not a crime at all.

And this is where your argument fails. If he is in the US "walking toward the ICE office" he is an illegal entrant and guilty of a misdemeanor at best. One presents oneself at the port of entry to claim asylum.
If one does this and does not illegally enter the country, they are not arrested. Not now and not before.


I have already provided examples of asylum seekers who have entered the country legally and were arrested.

Also, it is legal to apply for asylum while in the country. If ICE is arresting people before they can apply for asylum, they are not allowing migrants who are already in the country the opportunity to use their right to seek asylum.
#14933908
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said that you argued that people were confusing asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. Instead, I am arguing that you, Trump, and other conservatives are deliberately confusing these two separate groups.


I don't see that at work at all. The zero tolerance policy targets people who cross the border illegally.

By automatically prosecuting asylum seekers for entering the country, the Trump administration is deliberately choosing to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants.

And when conservatives such as yourself uncritically accept it, you are making that same confusion.


?

What the hell are you talking about? The US does not prosecute all asylum seekers.

Ideally, you would end neo-liberal practices in Latin America, legalise cocaine and marijuana, house all asylum seekers and their families in decent housing, and process their claims quickly.


This isn't very different from what the right wants, aside from the first two. With the third, detainment is preferred because there just isn't enough housing and the administration wants to prioritize preventing release.

By the way, this is a tacit admission the spur for asylum seeking has nothing to do with persecution. Good job.

So following the law prevents you from enforcing it?


Not prosecuting asylum seekers because of UN condemnation is us being prevented from enforcing the law, yes.

Exactly. The Trump administration is arresting asylum seekers regardless of the fact that they are not illegal immigrants.


...yea, sure. That's what "arresting people who cross the border illegally" means.

So the reason that the Republicans are not passing legislation that would reunite families is because they do not want to, according to that article.

Real family values party, there.


...sure PoD. Whatever you say.

Your claim the Republican legislation is sitting on its hands is false. Your claim that I was wrong about needing Democratic support, is false.

Please quote the text that supports your claim.


Go read what the compromise immigration bill was about. I'm done catching you up to speed on the basic facts at work in the American conversation.

Please present evidence for your claims that asylum seekers are being allowed to access legal points of entry.


The burden of proof is not on me here. This is the modus operandi of the ports of entry, it's illegal to do otherwise. It's up to you to show that they aren't working as they should to such a degree that illegal entry is justified, contrary to the default belief.

I'll give you a hint on your own futility though. That asylum seeking caravan you saw on the news a few months ago? Admitted through port of entry.

Did you quote the text that supports your claims that this is a significant loophole for illegal immigrants?


I showed the connection between rise in asylum claims and in absentia rates that the Trump administration cites as "catch and release".

You made the claim that Central Americans are not persecuted. It is on you to provide evidence to support that claim.


I denied the original claim that they are persecuted. That's the entire pitch of the 'asylum seeker' appeal. You can prove it or concede they are not fleeting persecution.

I literally quoted a professor of philosophy who teaches logic and who said that it is possible to prove a negative.

Your apparent inability to read is not an argument.


It is not possible to prove someone is not persecuted, nor is the burden of proof on me to show this.
#14933916
POD. If you don't like an answer you just make shit up.

Illegal entry is a stand-alone crime. A person who has been arrested for illegal entry can still apply for asylum. They can also be prosecuted for illegal entry. Since you like to play the zinger game you rarely post any thoughtful discussion. Here, again, is the truth.

A asylum claim is rarely decided by evidence. (Less than 50% are granted asylum anyway.) It is almost always decided on the apparent credibility of the applicant. For example. If someone comes here illegally, particularly if they use false documents to enter or stay here, their credibility is damaged in the eyes of many judges.

Further. It is possible to be granted asylum and not be granted a green card to stay. What this means is that the asylum seeker could later be ordered to depart. If one enters illegally using false documents or reenters after being removed they may still get a positive claim of asylum but be barred from permanent resident status for life. They would be in perpetual limbo. Able to work but subject to return at any time. Asylum can and is revoked.

I never argued that the US cannot detain them. Please note that arrest and detainment are two different things.


No they are not. You are articulating a distinction without a difference.

ON EDIT:
I was too weak. Under US law detention is only allowed for a very short time. These folks in camps and prisons are under arrest under US law. They are held pending a hearing. It is no different from pretrial confinement. There is an ongoing legal challenge.
#14934034
Folks the topic here is:

Trumps separating Central American children from their parents. Is this acceptable?

This is disastrous to separate kids, esp very young ones from their parents.

John Bowlby studied and wrote on the developmental psychological theory he called attachment theory. It's the 3 stage grieving process kids suffer if separated from their primary care giver (s), and it seems to peak at 9 days. The effects can be life long. You can describe the parents behaviour as mickey mouse or something akin to murder 1, but doing this to the kids is monstrous and far out strip s cruel and unusual punishment. Putting them alone in dog kennels.....Christ Almighty.
#14934104
Stormsmith is absolutely correct. It is little less than barbaric. And it is totally unnecessary. We are equipped to keep children with their parents.

This is also a separate issue from whether or not these families are allowed to stay. Stay or go, the kids belong with their parents. Full stop.
#14934291
Conscript wrote:I don't see that at work at all. The zero tolerance policy targets people who cross the border illegally.


Exactly. It targets asylum seekers who cross the border illegally as if they were simply illegal immigrants and not asylum seekers.

?

What the hell are you talking about? The US does not prosecute all asylum seekers.


What I wrote has nothing to do with that.

You are doing that thing again where you ignore my words and just repeat your point.

This isn't very different from what the right wants, aside from the first two. With the third, detainment is preferred because there just isn't enough housing and the administration wants to prioritize preventing release.


If this is what the right wants, then why are they doing absolutely nothing about this?

By the way, this is a tacit admission the spur for asylum seeking has nothing to do with persecution. Good job.


How so?

Not prosecuting asylum seekers because of UN condemnation is us being prevented from enforcing the law, yes.


No, not really. Feel free to support this argument with logic or facts, though.

...yea, sure. That's what "arresting people who cross the border illegally" means.


So you agree that Trump and his ilk are arresting asylum seekers as if they were illegal immigrants.

...sure PoD. Whatever you say.

Your claim the Republican legislation is sitting on its hands is false. Your claim that I was wrong about needing Democratic support, is false.


Did you even read that article?

The reason the six Democrats will not vote for Trump’s awful immigration bill is because it is repugnant to most people, including many Republicans.

Go read what the compromise immigration bill was about. I'm done catching you up to speed on the basic facts at work in the American conversation.


Since the article to which you linked had a clear description, I would suggest you go and read that article.

The burden of proof is not on me here. This is the modus operandi of the ports of entry, it's illegal to do otherwise. It's up to you to show that they aren't working as they should to such a degree that illegal entry is justified, contrary to the default belief.

I'll give you a hint on your own futility though. That asylum seeking caravan you saw on the news a few months ago? Admitted through port of entry.


Please note I have provided evidence that Trump is not letting asylum seekers access legal points of entry.

You have not provided evidence that they are veing allowed.

I showed the connection between rise in asylum claims and in absentia rates that the Trump administration cites as "catch and release".


Please provide a link to your post, then.

I denied the original claim that they are persecuted. That's the entire pitch of the 'asylum seeker' appeal. You can prove it or concede they are not fleeting persecution.

It is not possible to prove someone is not persecuted, nor is the burden of proof on me to show this.


You made the claim that they were not being persecuted.

You refuse to show evidence.

Your claim is now dismissed as unsupported speculation.
#14934298
There is no reason for nationalist policies to be fair to non nationals. These arguments based upon what is fair for asylum seekers are nonsense. No one should care if you believe in national autonomy.
#14934320
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.
  • 1
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]