Family Separation & the Travel Ban - from the Belly of the Beast

[Sailor Sam]

Thank you for the replies, everyone. I'm certainly the only person that can make a final choice, but the different perspectives help. Except for being called (by implication? couldn't tell) a so-called American. I coulda just as easily done with out that.

[MasterStache]

It seems like a good time to find a new job! Far fewer people had a problem with President Obama's ban on Iraqis.

Obama's review of vetting procedures for Iraqis was not a ban on the scale of the Trump administration's. It was a review of Special Immigrant Visa application procedures that only lasted 6 months.

If you care, here's a link that goes into more detail about why Trump can't just say "Obama did it too."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

We have Liberal Groups financing record migration from the south and the Mid East unrest and migration from there are simply too much for our current infrastructure to accommodate.

I would love to see actual proof for this assertion.

FYI, you are feeding the troll

[SisterX]

ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.

This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.

I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead. There are already climate refugees around the world, and with the situation in places like Venezuela devolving so rapidly we do need to come up with something that actually helps people. I just don't see that option as viable either, not on the scale things need to be done. Governments aren't even altruistic toward their own people, let alone the people in other countries.

[DreamFIRE]

ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.

This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.

I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.

The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous.   On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers.  A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs

[lemanfan]

Sam, despite (or perhaps because of) the sad circumstances that lead to you create this thread, I just want to say that this is perhaps one of the more important discussions to be had. The ethical implications of our actions or inactions are really not discussed enough, or at least not with serious intent.  At least not in my world.

While I'm not anywhere near your situation I've considered of how and when I should activate myself more with both words (politics) or actions here in Europe where many dark forces are on the rise again.

Even though I've not fully articulated what I really think about many political issues, I do know that we're reaching the point where action needs to be taken. We must learn from the 20th century and the totalitarian regimes and those two horrible world wars and their causes, especially the causes of omission.

With this posting I just want thank you for starting these thoughts, and I'm inspired by the people I see here on the forums, not least the political activism of MJ.

[MasterStache]

ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.

This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.

I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead. There are already climate refugees around the world, and with the situation in places like Venezuela devolving so rapidly we do need to come up with something that actually helps people. I just don't see that option as viable either, not on the scale things need to be done. Governments aren't even altruistic toward their own people, let alone the people in other countries.

Yeah I have no clue how to fix things either. Does Anyone? Its just as much a problem on a global scale that many nations have to deal with.

 The US has dealt with these immigration/asylum issue since forever and Sam leaving her much beloved career, or even getting a new POTUS, won't necessarily change things.  Which is why I'm saying to Sam to look at the good that she does on the job, and the good that her branch of the military does on a day to day basis,  in all the other areas it participates in and I know she'll see that there is far greater value in her staying then leaving.

I totally get her feelings and frustrations and the sense of helplessness when having to be the person who has to carry out these policies themselves in person to people who have suffered massive hardship in their country, and in fleeing their country,, and lost family and children in their migration only to be told to go home to die or face incarceration. I did that for a long time as it was part of my job - a job I wasn't allowed to just quit - knowing that it would continue on whether I was there or not. So I tried to look at the greater good I was doing in other areas of my job and realized their value.

I think a good start would be taking a deep long look at the legal immigration process. If folks are risking life or limb to get to our country, even it means getting sent back, and doing so illegally, then something is seriously wrong with the legal migration process. Just a thought.

[MasterStache]

ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.

This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.

I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.

The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous.   On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers.  A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs

That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/06/the-immigration-bills-6-3-trillion-price-tag-2/

Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.

[I'm a red panda]

Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas.  What we are doing at the border has very little affect on the "illegal immigration" problem.

[Warlord1986]

Warlord, I'm glad you're in my gang.

I am not kidding when I say I'm planning for the worst. PM me if you want to know more.

[Bicycle_B]

SS, confirmation of "you are not alone" re federal personnel considering policy resistance, potentially at cost of job:

http://thehill.com/latino/394757-more-than-a-dozen-ice-agents-call-to-abolish-agency

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ice-chief-thomas-homan-is-retiring-tomorrow-but-hes-not-going-out-quietly

[DreamFIRE]

ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.

This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.

I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.

The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous.   On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers.  A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs

That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.

Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.

I've read the study and others, and it was accurate at the time, although the cost would be MUCH higher now since the 6 TRILLION dollar cost in the Heritage Foundation comprehensive study was based on 2010 numbers.  The U.S. and American taxpayers such as myself can't afford it, not to mention the serious security and safety concerns for U.S. citizens associated with illegal immigration.

And my comment was right on topic with the discussion in response to another post, not a response directly to the OP.  It is allowed to respond to other posters in a thread - it happens all the time here.  If you don't want to read my posts, then move along.  You are the one trolling on me now just because open borders people like yourself don't want to hear anything that doesn't support your narrative.

[DreamFIRE]

Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas.  What we are doing at the border has very little affect (sic) on the "illegal immigration" problem.

Everyone knows about the fugitive illegals also, but the border is still a big problem.  We should be securing the border to prevent illegals from coming across, but there are other ways to deal with illegals who are in the country.  They should not be able to work and receive so many public resources at U.S. taxpayer expense.  There are systems like e-verify that can help with that.  If we can't deport all of them, we can at least get more of them to self-deport.  That was one of Mitt Romney's ideas as well.

[Sailor Sam]

Thank you for weighting in, @spartana. And thank you, @Bicycle_B. I wasn't aware Homan was resigning, thanks to my low information diet.

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

I do quibble with using family separation as a method of dissuasion from entering the United States. It's a guerrilla terror method that I refused to see as viable for the country that I love. It's also a lazy tactic. Ending jus soli would, in a single swipe of the pen, do everything the family separation policy ever attempted to accomplish, while also discouraging a significant portion of people who were even pondering trying to run the border. Instead, we decided to terrorize and incarcerate infants and tiny children, simply because it's easier to torture them than it is to end jus soli. And, yes, for some a paper solution lacks the tight little shiver of glee at willingly torturing other human beings. You get that kind of shiver, devildog?

[DreamFIRE]

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.

I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction.  It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread.  Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread.  I agree with spartana's recommendation.

[Laserjet3051]

Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas.  What we are doing at the border has very little affect on the "illegal immigration" problem.

I vehemently disagree with your 2nd point. "Most" implies >50%, you most certainly do not have evidence for that. While I agree with you that "many" illegal aliens (no need for quotes there) do enter lawfully and overstay their visas, there is a HUGE problem with those illegally crossing the border and BP/ICE's efforts AT the border has a significant effect. Exactly how close to our southern border do you live? Have you ever seen the madness/insanity that occurs at Border Field State Park, San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and other proximal, more rural environs? How about the San Diego public school district? The invasion is real and I see constant reminders of it daily.

[Davnasty]

Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas.  What we are doing at the border has very little affect on the "illegal immigration" problem.

I vehemently disagree with your 2nd point. "Most" implies >50%, you most certainly do not have evidence for that. While I agree with you that "many" illegal aliens (no need for quotes there) do enter lawfully and overstay their visas, there is a HUGE problem with those illegally crossing the border and BP/ICE's efforts AT the border has a significant effect. Exactly how close to our southern border do you live? Have you ever seen the madness/insanity that occurs at Border Field State Park, San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and other proximal, more rural environs? How about the San Diego public school district? The invasion is real and I see constant reminders of it daily.

Here's some evidence:

http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-zero-undocumented-growth/

Bullet 5. I'm not familiar with the Center for Migration studies but I didn't find any indication of bias with a quick search. If anyone knows otherwise please speak up.

I'm also not suggesting this negates the real effects you see on the ground but it does make me question the efficacy of physical deterrents like a wall.

[Davnasty]

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.

I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction.  It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread.  Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread.  I agree with spartana's recommendation.

Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.

Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.

[gaja]

I wonder the same thing. I'm going to a march this weekend, but part of me wonders if doing that gets my name on a list (not that it's going to stop me now, but will it cause me to be separated from my child in the future if I get sent somewhere for my "treasonous" behavior). That list won't matter now but at the rate we're going what will our country look like in a couple years? Then I tell myself I'm being overly paranoid. The problem is I won't know until years from now, after all of this has played out. All of us are stuck making the best decisions we can now with the information we have, shitty and incomplete as that information might be.

I've worried about this since a life event a few years ago...that I'd be an easy target of a witch hunt.
But now I think I'd rather be on that list then let these things happen without saying anything.

I'm taking off time on Friday to go to a rally to help a democrat congressional campaign. We have a vulnerable Republican seat- it needs to be turned.

My parents and grandfather were all on “the list”, and it sounds much scarier than it was. During the Cold War, my parents not only belonged to a left wing party, but they lived in the far north of Norway, close to the Russian border. Being avid campers, they did end up on the wrong side of the border a couple of times, and once they did a longer holiday to Murmansk. We also walked in all the marches. They did notice some delays and clicks/echoing on the phone, but other than that, it didn’t make a difference in their/our day to day life. They have later (this millennium) visited the US, and gotten visas without questions. But I guess you are more fond of Russia now...

My grandfather lived on an island in the North Atlantic, and was on a high priority watch list with the US. He took part in establishing a socialist party, and although he didn’t have a place in parliament, the US (correctly) thought much of the ideology came from him. Again; never made much of a difference in his day to day life. He never traveled to the US, but that was not common back then. He did spend time in several parts of Western Europe, without any problems. It was more of an issue when he got on the Nazi’s bad list during the war. But he got away, changed his name, and spent the rest of the war being a bit more careful.

[MasterStache]

ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.

This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.

I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.

The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous.   On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers.  A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs

That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.

Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.

I've read the study and others, and it was accurate at the time, although the cost would be MUCH higher now since the 6 TRILLION dollar cost in the Heritage Foundation comprehensive study was based on 2010 numbers.  The U.S. and American taxpayers such as myself can't afford it, not to mention the serious security and safety concerns for U.S. citizens associated with illegal immigration.

And my comment was right on topic with the discussion in response to another post, not a response directly to the OP.  It is allowed to respond to other posters in a thread - it happens all the time here.  If you don't want to read my posts, then move along.  You are the one trolling on me now just because open borders people like yourself don't want to hear anything that doesn't support your narrative.

No, it was not accurate at the time and still isn't accurate. Future projections cannot be accurate. Making assumptions for those future projections cannot be accurate. Those numbers were used by a select few trying to support their agenda. But both Dems and Repubs dismissed the numbers because of the huge inaccuracies, wild assumptions and thus complete bullshit. 

Calling out bullshit is not trolling. Posting bullshit and claiming it's accurate is trolling.

[LeRainDrop]

ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.

This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.

I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.

The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous.   On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers.  A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs

That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.

Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.

I've read the study and others, and it was accurate at the time, although the cost would be MUCH higher now since the 6 TRILLION dollar cost in the Heritage Foundation comprehensive study was based on 2010 numbers.  The U.S. and American taxpayers such as myself can't afford it, not to mention the serious security and safety concerns for U.S. citizens associated with illegal immigration.

And my comment was right on topic with the discussion in response to another post, not a response directly to the OP.  It is allowed to respond to other posters in a thread - it happens all the time here.  If you don't want to read my posts, then move along.  You are the one trolling on me now just because open borders people like yourself don't want to hear anything that doesn't support your narrative.

No, it was not accurate at the time and still isn't accurate. Future projections cannot be accurate. Making assumptions for those future projections cannot be accurate. Those numbers were used by a select few trying to support their agenda. But both Dems and Repubs dismissed the numbers because of the huge inaccuracies, wild assumptions and thus complete bullshit. 

Calling out bullshit is not trolling. Posting bullshit and claiming it's accurate is trolling.

I'm not going to buy The Heritage Foundation's report.  That is a very well-known conservative think tank with ties to the full Republican agenda.  Certainly a very biased source.  (And I had friends who actually worked there, high up, so there's no way you'll convince me otherwise.)

[MonkeyJenga]

With this posting I just want thank you for starting these thoughts, and I'm inspired by the people I see here on the forums, not least the political activism of MJ.

Aw thanks @lemanfan !

Meeps, I still think you should quit and run for office. You would have a kickass viral campaign video, a la Amy McGrath and MJ Hegar.

[GuitarStv]

I don't have advice for you, but it's encouraging that you've recognized the problems and aren't comfortable with what you're being asked to do.  Too often, the men and women involved in US military and paramilitary human rights violations don't voice concerns (or worse, don't feel any).  Following dishonorable and morally wrong commands is both a stain upon yourself and a betrayal to your country, but the personal penalty to do the right thing can be significant.

[Metta]

Bottom Line Up Front:
Can I continue to claim personal honor and personal morality, while holding a commission from a governmental Department that's disregarding both honor and morality?

My understanding is that as a military officer you have a right and an obligation to refuse illegal orders. So until the point that you encounter that kind of order, I think you are on stable moral ground to stay if that is what you want to do. Also, it is important that the military retain honorable people for exactly the reasons you state.

I left a job for ethical reasons when I was asked to take actions that were both illegal and ethically wrong and I did it with virtually no savings. I've never regretted it and I have a great deal of sympathy for those who do likewise. My sense is that you are not yet in that situation. When you are I think you will know the right thing to do based on your thoughtful framing of the problem here.

[GuitarStv]

My understanding is that as a military officer you have a right and an obligation to refuse illegal orders.

This is true only in theory.

See the US military approval of:
- Abu Ghraib Torture/Rape
- Guantanamo Bay Torture/Rape/Murders
- Helping Afghani pedophiles gain power and access to children
- Murder of Pakistani civilians by drone strike
etc.

The US military condones and expects it's personnel to perform immoral ace on a regular basis, and this pre-dates Trump.  If you take a moral stand by refusing an order, your career is likely over and you're likely to be disciplined.  When a whistleblower (like Edward Snowden) pops up, they are treated pretty harshly.

[craimund]

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.

I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction.  It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread.  Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread.  I agree with spartana's recommendation.

Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.

Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.

You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.

[former player]

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.

I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction.  It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread.  Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread.  I agree with spartana's recommendation.

Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.

Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.

You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.

You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.

Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".


Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it.   It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.

[craimund]

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.

I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction.  It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread.  Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread.  I agree with spartana's recommendation.

Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.

Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.

You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.

You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.

Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".


Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it.   It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.

Not sure where that 99.9% statistic comes from.  According to open-borders CNN, 60-75 % of illegals show for the hearing.  They also get to wander around the country and avail themselves of health care and education services in the interim.  Seems like we have enough crime, suffering and poverty here already with little need to import unskilled, poorly educated people from third world countries.  This issue is a winner for Trump.

[Davnasty]

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.

I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction.  It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread.  Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread.  I agree with spartana's recommendation.

Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.

Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.

You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.

You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.

Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".


Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it.   It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.

Not sure where that 99.9% statistic comes from.  According to open-borders CNN, 60-75 % of illegals show for the hearing.  They also get to wander around the country and avail themselves of health care and education services in the interim.  Seems like we have enough crime, suffering and poverty here already with little need to import unskilled, poorly educated people from third world countries.  This issue is a winner for Trump.

I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.

https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention

[craimund]

@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate?  I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.

I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction.  It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread.  Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread.  I agree with spartana's recommendation.

Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.

Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.

You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.

You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.

Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".


Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it.   It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.

Not sure where that 99.9% statistic comes from.  According to open-borders CNN, 60-75 % of illegals show for the hearing.  They also get to wander around the country and avail themselves of health care and education services in the interim.  Seems like we have enough crime, suffering and poverty here already with little need to import unskilled, poorly educated people from third world countries.  This issue is a winner for Trump.

I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.

https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention

Thanks for this.  A program like this may solve one problem with asylum seekers - making sure they show up for their hearings.  The bigger issue however is whether American citizens benefit from our current immigration policies.  The focus of the left seems to be on what benefits the migrants and not what is good for the country.  Taking in the entire populations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras may benefit the citizens of those countries.  Pretty sure that would be bad for American citizens.  There is nothing wrong with structuring our immigration system to benefit our own citizens.  That is what most other countries do.  Allowing a large number of unskilled immigrants to come here would necessarily suppress wages for Americans and put a strain on our medical and education systems.  Many Americans are suffering now.  We have widespread crime and poverty in our inner cities.  Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?

[GuitarStv]

Because right wing policies tend to prevent you from taking care of your own?

[former player]

I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.

https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention

Thanks, yes, that was the reference I was groping towards.

The bigger issue however is whether American citizens benefit from our current immigration policies.  The focus of the left seems to be on what benefits the migrants and not what is good for the country.  Taking in the entire populations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras may benefit the citizens of those countries.  Pretty sure that would be bad for American citizens.  There is nothing wrong with structuring our immigration system to benefit our own citizens.  That is what most other countries do.  Allowing a large number of unskilled immigrants to come here would necessarily suppress wages for Americans and put a strain on our medical and education systems.  Many Americans are suffering now.  We have widespread crime and poverty in our inner cities.  Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?

Thing is, even if the USA did have "open borders" (which I've never heard anyone serious suggest), most people Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras still wouldn't come to the USA, just as most people in Europe didn't come to the USA when there were no restrictions.  Most people just don't move countries that easily.

And how many USA citizens want to work in abbatoirs and meat packing plants, or milk dairy cows, or clean houses or do landscaping?  Or want to move to where those jobs are (there's inertia to moving within a country just as there is to moving between countries)?  Companes are hurting for employees to do these jobs.


And also, the birth rate in the USA is below population replacement rates.  Without immigration the USA will become smaller and poorer.

[Bicycle_B]

I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.

https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention

Thanks for this.  A program like this may solve one problem with asylum seekers - making sure they show up for their hearings.  The bigger issue however is whether American citizens benefit from our current immigration policies.  The focus of the left seems to be on what benefits the migrants and not what is good for the country.  Taking in the entire populations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras may benefit the citizens of those countries.  Pretty sure that would be bad for American citizens.  There is nothing wrong with structuring our immigration system to benefit our own citizens.  That is what most other countries do.  Allowing a large number of unskilled immigrants to come here would necessarily suppress wages for Americans and put a strain on our medical and education systems.  Many Americans are suffering now.  We have widespread crime and poverty in our inner cities.  Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?

I think current immigration policies are a mix of practicality and political grandstanding, both past and present. The practical side is that the country largely gets about the amount of immigration it needs.

Making the door open more easily for skilled immigrants would be helpful to America as well as the immigrants, but we do let in skilled people. Admittedly our paperwork is cumbersome and we lag other countries in this area, but we get a large fraction of the potential gains anyway. "Unskilled" immigrants are also wanted by business and needed for the economy, just as they were when most of my unskilled ancestors came from Europe. The political freak-out over immigration ignores this last fact, just as it has every couple of generations since the founding of the Republic. Realistically, the modest barriers we have allow enough cheap labor to come in so that our vegies are cheap and our floors are clean, due to work done by harmless compliant people who are very careful not to hurt anyone because they don't want to be deported (and because most of them are harmless people in the first place). The taxes paid and benefits directly received are roughly equal, as public analyses linked upthread show, while the economic benefit of migrants performing needed work is huge.

An additional positive from immigration is that much of the "benefits received" consists of kids going to school. On the books, that's a cost. But smart countries (Germany today, America in the past) recognize that education is a public good - an investment that benefits the overall economy because the kids grow up to be contributors to the society. That advantage, plus the immediate economic benefit of performing necessary work, mean that we benefit from immigrants.

Business gets about as much immigration as it wants. The political fears are just noise as far as substance goes. When the noise fades, business will still get about as much immigration as it wants. As it has for 240 years or so.

[Zamboni]

Thank you, SailorSam, for your eloquent posts.

I share the horror that most who have posted here express about separating young children from their parents. What monsters have we become? As a human and especially as a parent, I am appalled.

Some of you have suggested DNA testing on the way as a solution, which I thought of as well. But, do you want our govt to have your DNA sequenced and matched up to your name at this point in time? Suffice it to say that our government is not displaying the level of integrity that I would expect someone with my medical information to display. My DNA has been sequenced by a medical center to help a loved one with a life threatening medical issue . . . some of my relatives declined and I thought they were assholes at the time. Now I am not so sure. (I would not change my decision, though.)

Basically we will end up forcing all of these people to allow their DNA to be collected and sequenced by the govt (or a private company which has been known to share info with the govt) in order to get their children back. Shame on us.

To those who say "well then they should not have broken the law", bear in mind that the true precedent being set here is that any parent who is just being charged with any misdemeanor crime could have their children taken away indefinitely. No, that is not crazy talk. It is a slippery slope.

   First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a Socialist.
   Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
   Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a Jew.
   Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
                           -- Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

[ElleFiji]

I'm seeing the phrase 'avail themselves of healthcare' like that's a bad thing.... I know, logically, that we can't afford to treat everyone in the world to amazing healthcare. But as someone working in healthcare, I do want everyone to avail themselves of healthcare.

In so many places people resist available healthcare with devastating results. I hope that anyone who recognizes the value of healthcare seeks access to the best healthcare they can. And I don't think that any country does a good enough job providing healthcare for their citizens or for visitors and people overseas.

[EricL]

Thank you, SailorSam, for your eloquent posts.

I share the horror that most who have posted here express about separating young children from their parents. What monsters have we become? As a human and especially as a parent, I am appalled.

Some of you have suggested DNA testing on the way as a solution, which I thought of as well. But, do you want our govt to have your DNA sequenced and matched up to your name at this point in time? Suffice it to say that our government is not displaying the level of integrity that I would expect someone with my medical information to display. My DNA has been sequenced by a medical center to help a loved one with a life threatening medical issue . . . some of my relatives declined and I thought they were assholes at the time. Now I am not so sure. (I would not change my decision, though.)

Basically we will end up forcing all of these people to allow their DNA to be collected and sequenced by the govt (or a private company which has been known to share info with the govt) in order to get their children back. Shame on us.

To those who say "well then they should not have broken the law", bear in mind that the true precedent being set here is that any parent who is just being charged with any misdemeanor crime could have their children taken away indefinitely. No, that is not crazy talk. It is a slippery slope.

   First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a Socialist.
   Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
   Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a Jew.
   Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
                           -- Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Indeed.  One of the things that appalls me about ICE.  Yes, we should regulate our borders.  But their unconstitutional tactics set a precedent to violate American citizens' civil rights.  This will bite us in the ass later down the road. 

[JLee]

Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?

Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.

[GuitarStv]

Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?

Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.

Yep.  The logic is awesome.

"We've been working so hard for so long to be assholes to our countrymen . . . that's why we should be allowed to be assholes to people who want to come here."

[Zamboni]

^That is spot on.

DNA tests have now been ordered for ~3,000 children who have been separated from their parents by force. . . what a clusterfuck this whole thing is. Obviously there were no tracking system or timely reunification plans in place.

Prison industrial complex gone insane.
 

[JLee]

^That is spot on.

DNA tests have now been ordered for ~3,000 children who have been separated from their parents by force. . . what a clusterfuck this whole thing is. Obviously there were no tracking system or timely reunification plans in place.

Prison industrial complex gone insane.

That's exactly what it is...at nearly $800/person per night for the tent cities, someone's making some money here.

[Kris]

^That is spot on.

DNA tests have now been ordered for ~3,000 children who have been separated from their parents by force. . . what a clusterfuck this whole thing is. Obviously there were no tracking system or timely reunification plans in place.

Prison industrial complex gone insane.

That's exactly what it is...at nearly $800/person per night for the tent cities, someone's making some money here.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/06/zero-tolerance-immigration-is-big-money-for-contractors-nonprofits/

[sixwings]

Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?

Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.

Yep.  The logic is awesome.

"We've been working so hard for so long to be assholes to our countrymen . . . that's why we should be allowed to be assholes to people who want to come here."

Yep it's just pure lazyness, the Republican Party just like to say that to try to justify their agenda of cutting taxes for wealthy, reducing benefits for those we need to take care of and limiting access for minority voting.

You'll notice that evertime someone says "we need to take care of people in our country" it's to justify treating someone not-white terribly and offers no actual real solutions for how we "treat people better".

[Zamboni]

WTF?! Now officials are admitting they've "lost track" of the parents of 38 (and I'm going to add "at least" 38 here based upon how this is going) of the pre-school and younger aged children who were separated from their parents at the border. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-asks-more-time-reunite-kids-parents-separated-border-n889301

[GuitarStv]

No surprise there.

[LeRainDrop]

Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?

Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.

Yep.  The logic is awesome.

"We've been working so hard for so long to be assholes to our countrymen . . . that's why we should be allowed to be assholes to people who want to come here."

LOL, you're so right!  Most of the people I hear say that then indicate they mean we should be doing much more for veterans.  And that's fair.  But they act as if nothing else matters unless the veterans are taken care of, and we cannot care about any other cause until that is done.

WTF?! Now officials are admitting they've "lost track" of the parents of 38 (and I'm going to add "at least" 38 here based upon how this is going) of the pre-school and younger aged children who were separated from their parents at the border. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

Fucking awesome.  And by that, I mean shitty.