Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 235: Autopsy-Turvy

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

So you are a death penalty supporter. That is surprising.

Though the options were for all to be sent back to their own countries, not murdered in the middle of the ocean.

what? No! Its not the death penalty. Circus performers survive being shot out of cannons all the time. Theyll be fine.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You literally are talking about how inhumane the conditions are while saying it isn't a humanitarian issue.

I never said this.

You are arguing for holding children indefinitely. That is inhumane. You are admitting to approving of an action that can make you nothing but a deplorable human being. You should feel bad.

I feel bad that people like you exist.
---

Corrik7 posted...

You literally are talking about how inhumane the conditions are while saying it isn't a humanitarian issue.

Doesn't make sense!

the solution to the inhumane conditions is not to say fuck it, lets just send em all back.... its to make the conditions humane

---

red13n posted...

I never said this.

You are arguing for holding children indefinitely. That is inhumane. You are admitting to approving of an action that can make you nothing but a deplorable human being. You should feel bad.

I feel bad that people like you exist.

You can feel bad for whatever you wish to feel bad about. Yes, if they cannot be locked up together than they need to be held somewhere. You can't just release kids into the country without their parents. Especially when they are not citizens, and you cannot ensure their safety. The fact you think just tossing kids out there is an actual good idea is weird. Then to act like someone else is some vile person because they care more about the safety of children than you do is also just not a logical conclusion either.

Nobody wants children held for long periods of time. The system needs to move so that cases can be decided quickly and the families can be admitted or denied.

Thus, they need to be able to reduce the backlog quickly and take care of the situation, and/or prevent more illegal immigration / asylum seekers until it is under control.

Unfortunately, legal red tape and a backlog that ballooned during the Obama administration and continued to balloon has the US immigration system literally crushed atm.


---

Corrik7 posted...

Nobody wants children held for long periods of time.

Indefinitely.
---

red13n posted...

Indefinitely.

Indefinitely can mean an hour or a week or a month or etc. It means as long as needed. Not forever.


---

you literally arent arguing for any sort of legislation that speeds up the process here because none of that is up for debate. The only thing you are advocating for is for children to be held indefinitely.

Its honestly quite disgusting. I mean, we knew these things about you, but your just being more open about them now.

Its sad.
---

indefinitely
/indef()ntl/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
adverb: indefinitely

for an unlimited or unspecified period of time.
---

red13n posted...

indefinitely
/indef()ntl/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
adverb: indefinitely

for an unlimited or unspecified period of time.

Congrats. I am glad you learned what the word means. Now apply the proper usage.

Lmfao at red thinking if players are out indefinitely that they will never play again.

It means for an unknown amount of time. Lololol... Red, you crack me up.

---

not unknown, unlimited.
---

red13n posted...

you literally arent arguing for any sort of legislation that speeds up the process here because none of that is up for debate. The only thing you are advocating for is for children to be held indefinitely.

Its honestly quite disgusting. I mean, we knew these things about you, but your just being more open about them now.

Its sad.

You literally just made that up.

I have over many topics stated that asylum seekers should be automatically denied if they past thru a third country on the way. That is not how asylum works.

I have over many topics stated we need to streamline the immigration court system to let them deal with cases faster.

I have over many topics said we need more judges to process cases faster.

I have over many topics said we need to have a border wall to help deter illegal crossings and require less manpower on the actual border to free up money in other places to help with the situation.

The problem is this was allowed to happen and now that the law is properly being applied, people are upset about it. (Though to be fair Democrats are only upset right now because a Republican president is in office.)

The system needs to be fixed. However, there is nothing much that can be done right now to immediately fix the issue unless you blanket allow everyone in or deny everyone as of now to get it under control to let the system recover and not continue to flounder.


---

red13n posted...

not unknown, unlimited.

I am dying that you seriously don't know what the fuck indefinitely means. Lmfao.


---

red13n posted...

not unknown, unlimited.

its both... you dont know how long it will be because they havent placed a limit on it

---

Would be a hell of a world if indefinitely meant what you seem to think it is! Lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/sports/ncaabasketball/grayson-allen-duke-indefinite-suspension.html

Haha.

It doesn't mean they are keeping kids forever, bro. It means until the court stuff is settled, which they don't know when that will be.

Again, you can't release non-citizen children into the United States without their parents. That would be asinine.

Maybe the only way they could swing it is to allow a citizen to agree to care for the child as the court case takes place and the parents are detained, with the caveat if the child isn't returned upon completion of the case they have committed a felony.

But, it does not solve child separation. Also, likely all the people acting like some travesty is unfolding wouldn't even be open to doing that idea anyways.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

its both... you dont know how long it will be because they havent placed a limit on it

He is implying it means possibly forever. It means until an unspecified time til the court case is concluded in this context. Which again can be lengthy due to the overrun system that you should be screaming to fix.

---

Again, you are saying you are ok with children being held indefinitely.

The fact is simply disgusting. I am still sorry people like you exist.

Everyone is saying to fix the system. You are arguing the system is bettered by holding children for a limitless period of time.

It is quite sad. But we know what kind of human being you are. It is unfortunate.
---

There's another option: release both the parents and kids pending trial (unless there's a good reason not to do so for the particular person in question). Given that the alternative is locking up kids, it's a pretty damn appealing option! (It was also the norm prior to Trump).

---

red13n posted...

Again, we are saying you are ok with children being held indefinitely.

The fact is simply disgusting. I am still sorry people like you exist.

Everyone is saying to fix the system. You are arguing the system is bettered by holding children for a limitless period of time.

It is quite sad. But we know what kind of human being you are. It is unfortunate.

No. You are again making things up.

Democrats are simply crying about Trump instead of crying to actually fixing the system with a bipartisan plan.

That is your problem.

You act like acting you are morally superior is an argument that isn't laughable. You want to complain about a system, but I don't see you complaining about Democrats refusing to work together to make a bipartisan solution to it.

Typical partisan political arguments as usual. Just something to use politically as a pawn.

If both sides actually wanted a solution to the problem, it would be done.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

There's another option: release both the parents and kids pending trial (unless there's a good reason not to do so for the particular person in question). Given that the alternative is locking up kids, it's a pretty damn appealing option! (It was also the norm prior to Trump).

It isn't an appealing option. They disappear and have no incentive to return. It is a complete unworkable solution because it is a loophole to gain admission into the United States illegally.

This works if they are released into a third country. It doesn't work by releasing them into your own they are trying to enter, many illegally.

This is why the refusal to support the third country option is just silly by liberals. It is like all your options have to be supporting illegal immigration to "help the kids".

Agree to ideas that keep a priority on not allowing illegal immigration. They exist. Many of them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

He is implying it means possibly forever. It means until an unspecified time til the court case is concluded in this context. Which again can be lengthy due to the overrun system that you should be screaming to fix.

it does mean possibly forever. Maybe the court case takes too long and they die there, I dunno, its completely undefined. Sure thats unlikely, but until an unspecified time and potentially forever are basically the same if youre given no real parameters to restrict the unspecified time. Infinity = infinity.

and I dont know where you get the idea that we dont want to fix the system. Sending them all back without due process like you suggested just isnt a satisfactory fix.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. You are again making things up.

no, i'm stating facts. you are going off on a tangent. You are ok with the new unlimited holding.

You are a sad person. I am sad you exist.
---

1. Do you think all people facing trial should be remanded?
2. Seeking asylum is legal. Do you agree that, at minimum, asylum seekers shouldn't be locked up?

---

If both sides actually wanted a solution to the problem, it would be done.

thats not true when both sides have opposing ideas of what constitutes a solution or what the problem even is

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

thats not true when both sides have opposing ideas of what constitutes a solution or what the problem even is

If the "kids" are what was the utmost priority, a compromise plan would have alrdy happened. It isn't though. Both sides just want their way. Which means the kids are not the utmost priority to the government.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

1. Do you think all people facing trial should be remanded?
2. Seeking asylum is legal. Do you agree that, at minimum, asylum seekers shouldn't be locked up?

I believe everyone who is not a US citizen facing trial should be remanded. Yes.

Asylum seekers should be automatically denied if going through a third country because they were not actually seeking asylum but a specific destination.

---

Corrik7 posted...

If the "kids" are what was the utmost priority, a compromise plan would have alrdy happened. It isn't though. Both sides just want their way. Which means the kids are not the utmost priority to the government.

the kids are one component of a larger issue, obviously more things matter than just that and a solution to the kids thing that fucks up a bunch of other things isnt a good solution. Its all a priority, the cage kids are just the most egregious part of the situation.

---

To be honest, all asylum seekers should be from relatively adjacent countries or have applied from their home countries first. Let's not forget what asylum is supposed to actually be.

It is not supposed to be a "hey, let's move to where we can hopefully do best.". That is immigration.

It is "We have to get out of here and go anywhere at all that will take us to get away from this country".

There is being a misapplication of asylum going on here, and it should be streamlined to easily deny asylum when it is obviously not valid.


---

Corrik7 posted...

I believe everyone who is not a US citizen facing trial should be remanded. Yes.

Asylum seekers should be automatically denied if going through a third country because they were not actually seeking asylum but a specific destination.

Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution from their Government in their home country.[5] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.[6]

weird I dont see must not have traveled through more than one country on the list


---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

the kids are one component of a larger issue, obviously more things matter than just that and a solution to the kids thing that fucks up a bunch of other things isnt a good solution. Its all a priority, the cage kids are just the most egregious part of the situation.

The most egregious part is the parents who put their kids in this situation. We cannot control the parents doing this. However, we can fix the system to prevent the parents from doing this to their young ones without weakening our borders and destroying our own immigration systems.

It is just as much tantamount to protecting our sovereignty and borders for the US citizens as it is to be concerned about non-US citizen children that their parents are purposely putting into bad situations.

We have as much a responsibility to our citizens and our borders as we do to the children involved here.

There are solutions to equally protect both from the actions of the parents causing these issues.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution from their Government in their home country.[5] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.[6]

weird I dont see must not have traveled through more than one country on the list

Once you left your country and went into another one, you accomplished the first one no longer being applicable. Thus, you fail the asylum requirements. The second likely no longer applies anymore either.

Asylum is we have to get out, not let's choose where we want to go.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Once you left your country and went into another one, you accomplished the first one no longer being applicable. Thus, you fail the asylum requirements. The second likely no longer applies anymore either.

Asylum is we have to get out, not let's choose where we want to go.

If someone is from Guatemala and fears persecution there, then they enter Mexico, that doesnt make them no longer fear persecution were they to return to Guatemala and Mexico doesnt suddenly become their home just because they walked into it. The first criteria as it is currently worded absolutely still applies.

---

Specifically the basis for rejecting someone based on being in another country before the US is

the applicant has been firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States

passing through a country while traveling is not firmly resettling.


---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

If someone is from Guatemala and fears persecution there, then they enter Mexico, that doesnt make them no longer fear persecution were they to return to Guatemala and Mexico doesnt suddenly become their home just because they walked into it. The first criteria as it is currently worded absolutely still applies.

Then you need to either show proof Mexico denied your asylum or that Mexico is now the country you are applying from asylum from with proof. Which you unlikely are unable to prove without any significant time period there.

Asylum seekers going through other countries are simply immigrants. Usually economic immigrants. There is a legal process for immigration. You can't jump the line by claiming asylum which is obviously untrue if going through other countries where you could have your asylum granted. Especially, should be failed if you didn't even try there.

Only way crossing through countries should be allowed for asylum is if you applied from your home country and awaited approval before coming.

---

also missed this one

The most egregious part is the parents who put their kids in this situation.

no its not. if theyre legitimately seeking asylum presumably the situation would be even worse for the kids if they didnt leave their country.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Specifically the basis for rejecting someone based on being in another country before the US is

the applicant has been firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States

passing through a country while traveling is not firmly resettling.

That just simply is broken. This is something Hungary gets completely right in their elimination of illegal immigration.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

also missed this one

no its not. if theyre legitimately seeking asylum presumably the situation would be even worse for the kids if they didnt leave their country.

If parents feel their children separated from them in holding facilities indefinitely until their cases are resolved is a net plus for their children, then who are we to argue with them.

*Rolls eyes*

---

Corrik7 posted...

It isn't an appealing option. They disappear and have no incentive to return. It is a complete unworkable solution because it is a loophole to gain admission into the United States illegally.

The compliance rate of immigrants paroled under "catch and release" was around 90%. (ACLU says 92%, I'm seeing another long-term study saying 81%-86% depending on if a family is involved - families reporting in more frequently. When looking specifically at families seeking asylum, that number was 96%.)

Of course, once Trump implemented zero-tolerance and family separation it dropped into the low-to-mid single digits.

problem. of. their. own. making.
---

Corrik7 posted...

If parents feel their children separated from them in holding facilities indefinitely until their cases are resolved is a net plus for their children, then who are we to argue with them.

*Rolls eyes*

yeah I dont think theyre coming here with the intention of getting caught and detained, theyre taking a calculated risk to attempt to improve their situation.

like obviously if they didnt think it was a net plus, they wouldnt be doing it. You dont undertake a long journey with a risk of indefinite incarceration for funzies.

---

Corrik7 posted...

If parents feel their children separated from them in holding facilities indefinitely until their cases are resolved is a net plus for their children, then who are we to argue with them.

*Rolls eyes*

Might wanna roll the dice on that if the alternative is rape or murder.

---

Can't argue with Corrik on any of this because he doesn't believe in any sort of human decency for people that are not US citizens.

He keeps arguing things irrelevant to the fact he is somehow ok with detaining children indefinitely and brings up points irrelevant to the singular act of allowing kids to be detained indefinitely.

He keeps circling around to the "immigration is a problem" which we all agree with but this has nothing to do with solving that problem and is literal just an attempted inhumane deterrent.

Again, painful to argue with someone who has no care for basic human decency.
---

Also, sexual orientation should definitely be on the list of asylum reasons. Weird it isn't.

---

On another note, lets be clear here, the only thing Trump is looking for as far as immigration reform is to build a multi-billion dollar border wall that can be defeated by a ladder. Republicans as a whole had plenty of time and control to do whatever the hell they wanted on immigration, they didnt do shit.

Now Trump is just throwing a fit and trying to make the problem worse because hes a racist asshole that cant even a little bit handle not getting his way.
---

And the next debate is already being advertised as two nights. More shit.

Corrik7 posted...

Also, sexual orientation should definitely be on the list of asylum reasons. Weird it isn't.

it has been used as a basis to grant asylum under the social group criteria

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

it has been used as a basis to grant asylum under the social group criteria

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

Interesting. It should be on there anyways. There are countries and such that can be very oppressive to those based on that.

---

red13n posted...

Can't argue with Corrik on any of this because he doesn't believe in any sort of human decency for people that are not US citizens.

As a reminder, denying due process to non-citizens is literally the first step to denying it for citizens. All they have to do is detain somebody, claim they're not a citizen, and they don't even have to give the detainee a chance to prove themselves because "due process doesn't apply to non-citizens". Boom, citizens detained indefinitely and without due process.

We've already seen cases bordering (at best) on this with ICE detaining citizens.

Denying it to non citizens transitions nicely into denying it for "not really citizens" as we've seen with the recent reliance on ancient anti semitic tropes and accusations of disloyalty.
---

What Regaro and Peaf said. You can go on about well if they didnt want to be arrested, they wouldnt come here illegally (Or, um, well, they wouldnt come here legally when they couldve stopped in other countries instead! Yeah, THATS it!), but the fact is that this administration has already demonstrated multiple instances of detaining verifiable, legal citizens.

Lets put it this way: ICE isnt going out of their way to seek out a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian who overstayed a tourist visa, and we all know why illegals are the focus of the issue.

Kinda hard to find a compromise on immigration when one side doesnt believe said immigrants are worthy of human decency.
---

Politicians only care about undocumented immigrants for one reason: To make it easier to exploit them. Of course, they can't advertise this fact. So instead they sell fear. You'll notice that hiring undocumented immigrants doesn't get punished very hard at all. They WANT undocumented immigrants in this country so they can exploit them. This is why a wall is a popular measure. It wouldn't actually do much to stop them from coming in, but it plays to the base very well. (They can't exactly say they want to exploit these workers.)
---

btw did I miss people here mentioning that Hickenlooper has announced a run for Senate?

Still a shame about Bullock refusing to do so though