Immigrant Children Cry Out in Audio Recorded at Detention Center

[yuna628 9,711]

1 hour ago, Ironclad43 said:

I don't know what you guys were discussing in these last 7 pages, i'll probably read that now, but here's one foolproof way to not have your children taken from you:

 

Do not commit crimes. Do not attempt to enter another country illegally, and do not submit false asylum claims. Domestic violence is not grounds for asylum. Poor economic prospects are not grounds for asylum. Anything other than legitimate political persecution of yourself and your loved ones, is not grounds for asylum.

 

Immigrate the right way - the legal way. Most of us on this forum are legal immigrants (apart from the DACAs - you don't get to keep the proceeds of your parents' crimes) and we've waited a long time in line, and paid thousands of dollars in fees to the USCIS to be admitted lawfully and reside in the US. What the Media and Establishment want to achieve by this is open borders. That will be a disaster for the US. They're tugging at your heart strings to pull out your brain. Do not let it happen.

If domestic violence is not grounds for asylum then how do you explain Matter of A-B, 27 I&N DEC. 227 (BIA 2018) and other pathways below which granted asylum to such a woman on those grounds and offered convoluted methods for others. The one that the current AG reversed. I'll explain this from the law group blog the asylumist which was both critical and supportive of the AG's decision and explaining how DV cases could lead to successful asylum claims. They go on further and more interesting as to how a judge in these cases could still offer asylum even in the spite of the AG's guideline, which was tepid at best, a little confusing, and may not have the impact desired. People are continuing to win their cases against the government.  http://www.asylumist.com/2018/06/12/the-attorney-generals-not-as-bad-as-we-feared-decision-on-asylum/

 

Quote

 

Matter of A-B- most immediately impacts victims of domestic violence. Since 1999, the law related to asylum for DV victims has been evolving. Different lawyers and government agencies have worked to crack open the door for such applicants. The end result of their efforts was Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which created a convoluted path for victims of DV to obtain asylum. I think it was fairly apparent that A-R-C-G-  was a house of cards, waiting for a hostile Administration to knock it down. And in Matter of A-B-, Mr. Sessions has done just that–he has overturned nearly two decades of evolving precedent, and overruled A-R-C-G-.

How, exactly, Mr. Sessions has attempted to block DV asylum seekers is important. To win asylum, an applicant must not only show that she faces harm; she must demonstrate that the harm she faces is on account of a protected ground, such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group (“PSG”). So if a persecutor wants to kill you in order to steal your money, that is usually not a basis for asylum. But if the persecutor wants to harm you because he does not like your political opinion, or race, or religion, or PSG, that can form the basis for an asylum claim. A-R-C-G- said that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a PSG, making such people potentially eligible for asylum (assuming they met a host of other requirements).

38 minutes ago, bcking said:

I agree with you generally, with one caveat.

 

In my opinion, I don't think a proper deterrent for families to not enter illegaly is to separate them from their children. I definitely think we can be firmer with illegal immigration, and we definitely can send a message that it won't work, you won't be welcomed, and you will be sent back. But through all of that, I think we could do it in a way that doesn't separate families. We could hold them together, process them, and then send them back together. Is family separation an effective deterrent? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I think we can hold ourselves to a higher moral standard, while still enforcing immigration laws and still curbing illegal immigration.

 

When we decide to use something like "family separation" as a deterrent for the parents, we are involving other people (the children) who aren't involved in the decision making, but can suffer as a result. While yes their parents are committing a crime, and shouldnt' be encouraged to do so, they are still their parents and the child shouldn't be separated unless deemed necessary. Separation should be an exception, not a rule.

What conditions will the said 'families' be held under? Still in cages? We still have to go through the process of determining if the person who says they are the parent are actually the parent. That will still mean separation. The reality also is that we continue to deport people but hold their children. And many never see their children again. Their children end up remaining in America, one way or another.

26 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

Oh I fully agree with you that we shouldn't separate families of illegal aliens. They should instead be turned back the moment they're caught, together. No judge, no court date, no trial, no detention. 

I don't disagree with you as a whole, it would seem to be simple. But the legal process is important to a functioning democracy. You said in your earlier post that you would simply like to see them enter the right way. You know, get in line. But everyone on this forum knows that currently there is no pathway they can take to enter 'the right way', just as a child starving with a belly full of maggots in the Sudan cannot enter 'the right way'. We have no visa pathways for the majority of these individuals. If offered a pathway, I do believe many of them would take it. But what pathway would we be willing to offer that's 'good enough' for some people?

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

Right now since we are enforcing the law 100%, all cases of illegal entry have criminal proceedings against them. I'm not saying that is wrong, but that means that all cases of asylum seekers who enter illegally will have their children separated from them.

 

I was under the impression we were only talking about illegal entry. If an asylum seeker enters legally, they aren't really part of this discussion. The 2,000 children being separated are all illegal entries (I believe?). In my opinion, even if you enter illegally but you are seeking asylum, you shouldn't be separated unless there are additional grounds for separation (doubt that the parent is actually the parent, other criminal proceedings other than illegal entry).

 

While illegal entry is a crime and I'm not disagreeing with enforcing our borders, I don't think it should be lumped together with more serious crimes. Legitimate asylum cases are very likely to enter illegally as well, because if they are truly fleeing from political persecution they may not have the time or resources to plan their entry through legal means, or they may just lack the education required to know where to go and how to do it so they figure they will just get across to where they are "safe" and then get processed. I can't imagine being in that position, so I can't really fault them for that.

There is currently several asylum seekers that still do not have their children with them. They have passed initial findings and have been charged with no crime. That's why they are going to begin to sue. Currently those entering illegally aren't being lumped together with serious crimes. All of these people are merely being charged with misdemeanor offenses.

[Ironclad43 131]

AG Sessions said it's not grounds. It's political asylum meant for legitimate political persecution. 

 

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

a child starving with a belly full of maggots in the Sudan

..is not the responsibility of the US government.

 

 

[yuna628 9,711]

1 minute ago, Ironclad43 said:

AG Sessions said it's not grounds. It's political asylum meant for legitimate political persecution. 

 

..is not the responsibility of the US government.

 

 

What happens when the next AG decides to reverse all that the current AG thinks is not grounds?

 

Not saying it is the responsibility. However when a person keeps saying that they just need to get in line and do it the right way, I'd hope they'd understand there is no line for them to begin with.

[Ironclad43 131]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

get in line and do it the right way,

 

That's the only way to do it. You go to the port of entry, you approach the CBP officer when called, you say that you want to apply for asylum. 

 

Instead, what they do is travel through multiple countries, not seeking asylum where they're safe, but continuing on to the US where there's "free stuff" and apply there, only after getting caught trying to enter illegally. What would they do if they weren't caught? Who would they go to for asylum? How would they work without committing identity theft or fraud? (Both being penalties which will result in child separation)

 

Most Americans feel this way and I'm glad they're waking up to the Hell both parties have created.

[Dashinka 24,764]

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

If domestic violence is not grounds for asylum then how do you explain Matter of A-B, 27 I&N DEC. 227 (BIA 2018) and other pathways below which granted asylum to such a woman on those grounds and offered convoluted methods for others. The one that the current AG reversed. I'll explain this from the law group blog the asylumist which was both critical and supportive of the AG's decision and explaining how DV cases could lead to successful asylum claims. They go on further and more interesting as to how a judge in these cases could still offer asylum even in the spite of the AG's guideline, which was tepid at best, a little confusing, and may not have the impact desired. People are continuing to win their cases against the government.  http://www.asylumist.com/2018/06/12/the-attorney-generals-not-as-bad-as-we-feared-decision-on-asylum/

 

What conditions will the said 'families' be held under? Still in cages? We still have to go through the process of determining if the person who says they are the parent are actually the parent. That will still mean separation. The reality also is that we continue to deport people but hold their children. And many never see their children again. Their children end up remaining in America, one way or another.

I don't disagree with you as a whole, it would seem to be simple. But the legal process is important to a functioning democracy. You said in your earlier post that you would simply like to see them enter the right way. You know, get in line. But everyone on this forum knows that currently there is no pathway they can take to enter 'the right way', just as a child starving with a belly full of maggots in the Sudan cannot enter 'the right way'. We have no visa pathways for the majority of these individuals. If offered a pathway, I do believe many of them would take it. But what pathway would we be willing to offer that's 'good enough' for some people?

There is currently several asylum seekers that still do not have their children with them. They have passed initial findings and have been charged with no crime. That's why they are going to begin to sue. Currently those entering illegally aren't being lumped together with serious crimes. All of these people are merely being charged with misdemeanor offenses.

 

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

What conditions will the said 'families' be held under? Still in cages? We still have to go through the process of determining if the person who says they are the parent are actually the parent. That will still mean separation. The reality also is that we continue to deport people but hold their children. And many never see their children again. Their children end up remaining in America, one way or another.

So DV was woven into the asylum claim by some lawyers over the years and Sessions hit the reset button and when back to the I 589 requirements?  If DV is a valid asylum claim not elucidated on the I589, then I suppose there are a lot of Indian women that should be heading to an American consulate.

 

I heard yesterday that the cages shown by the Left leaning media are actually the processing areas, but I suppose anything else doesn't show the narrative they are trying to paint.

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

What happens when the next AG decides to reverse all that the current AG thinks is not grounds?

 

Not saying it is the responsibility. However when a person keeps saying that they just need to get in line and do it the right way, I'd hope they'd understand there is no line for them to begin with.

The same thing that happens when a president uses EO to create laws (DACA).

[Dashinka 24,764]

2 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

 

That's the only way to do it. You go to the port of entry, you approach the CBP officer when called, you say that you want to apply for asylum. 

 

Instead, what they do is travel through multiple countries, not seeking asylum where they're safe, but continuing on to the US where there's "free stuff" and apply there, only after getting caught trying to enter illegally. What would they do if they weren't caught? Who would they go to for asylum? How would they work without committing identity theft or fraud? (Both being penalties which will result in child separation)

 

Most Americans feel this way and I'm glad they're waking up to the Hell both parties have created.

Maybe California will succeed in their secession attempt and they can all head there and get even more free stuff.

[Ironclad43 131]

One can dream 

[Boiler 46,013]

According to the MDL seems at least half the world's population should qualify for asylum, and a lot of those are resident in the US.

 

So 3.5 Billion people.

 

Wonder how that will work.

[Ironclad43 131]

Easy, just give up your home and life to import all those people in the Utopian States of (American) Communism like the Democrats want.

[TBoneTX 46,055]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

You claim that someone claims that claims are embellished. And are often embellished at that.

Call it an ongoing observational study in real time in the center of the environment.

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

that does not mean all claims are embellished.

Never said that they were or are.

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

What does it matter that US-born women experience the same?

It matters because more outrage and attention (meaning the desire to offer asylum) is seemingly being proffered the illegal entrants than to female U.S. natives.

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

No woman anywhere should be experiencing it.

You're exactly right -- however, it's not the U.S.'s job to be responsible for stopping, resolving, or ameliorating this reprehensible behavior when it happens in other countries.

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Why should any immigrant be asked such a question?

Oh, but they are asked, or their claims are confirmed:  E2, H1B, and almost certainly others.

Why should uneducated, penniless asylum-seekers be granted ad hoc or formal entry if they have near-zero chances of learning a country's chief language, have similarly remote chances of career or self-supporting job prospects, and have a near-100% chance that they and their children will immediately and permanently consume public benefits allocated for USCs and legal PRs?

3 hours ago, Ironclad43 said:

Do not attempt to enter another country illegally, and do not submit false [...] claims.

Hundreds or thousands of visa applicants are refused at the consular level all the time if their papers aren't in order, if they're untruthful, or if they're perceived to be intending immigrants (this last = the official presumption, long predating the Trump administration).  Even more can be, and are, turned away by CBP upon attempted entry.  Why should asylum-seekers who try to enter by land without notice, or who successfully do enter and are then caught, be permitted wider latitude of treatment than are those who apply, pay fees, and present themselves first at a consulate and then at POE?

[Ironclad43 131]

10 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Why should asylum-seekers who try to enter by land without notice, or who successfully do enter and are then caught, be permitted wider latitude of treatment than are those who apply, pay fees, and present themselves first at a consulate and then at POE?

Because it hurts my feelings, TBone Can't you understand that hurt feelings are the most important thing?

[Unidentified 2,930]

5 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

Because it hurts my feelings, TBone Can't you understand that hurt feelings are the most important thing?

To write my English teacher: facts doesn't care about feelings.

 

Sadly they brought this on themselves.

 

[Ironclad43 131]

Sadly very few people think this way.

[Umka36 781]

"There's nothing new about tearing kids away from their parents. We do it all the time in our prison system"

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-enter-the-fray-it-may-be-cruel-but-there-s-nothing-new-1529430886-htmlstory.html

 

[Dashinka 24,764]

 

53 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

To write my English teacher: facts doesn't care about feelings.

 

Sadly they brought this on themselves.

 

If an American parent decided to take their kids on a hike across the Mohave in the late Spring/early Summer do you think the authorities would consider that neglectful?