*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[BananaStand]

Crossing the border is not a crime.

It is without a visa

Seeking asylum is not a crime.
Treating asylum seekers like criminals while their case is being reviewed is injustice.

What would a person be suffering from in Northern Mexico, for which they would need asylum in the United States?

Treating people whom have not yet been convicted of a crime as though they are already guilty is not what I was taught America is about.
People accused of crimes are not yet criminals. Something about "innocent until proven otherwise."

LOL luckily for civilization it's more nuanced than that. See, there's something called 'probable cause'. That says that if law enforcement catches you in the act, or suspects you of a crime, they can detain you pending an investigation. So...if the law I'm enforcing is the border, and I find you on my side of the border, and you don't have a visa, then I have probable cause to detain you and investigate.

If that investigation results in charges, I can further detain you until trial if you are believed to be a flight risk. And anyone jumping the border is probably a flight risk!

Next time a cop tries to pull you over for speeding, just keep driving. Try that "innocent until proven guilty" line.

OK, so that applies to Americans under American laws. An asylum seeker is petitioning to be an American whom follows American laws.
While that process is underway, treating them as anything else is injustice.

LOL, you've caught yourself in a logic trap there champ. If the Asylum seeker enters the US without a visa....are they following American laws?

[Poopadoop]

LOL, you've caught yourself in a logic trap there champ. If the Asylum seeker enters the US without a visa....are they following American laws?

Do you understand what asylum seeking means? It's not about sneaking into a country and then, if you get caught, claiming asylum.

Asylum seekers present themselves to immigration at a border crossing and file a claim to asylum. They're then detained (previously as a family unit, but for a while not), while their case goes to proceedings. What law are they breaking by doing that? What possible justification is there for separating them from their children under these circumstances?

[BananaStand]

Do you understand what asylum seeking means? It's not about sneaking into a country and then, if you get caught, claiming asylum.

Hmmm, not so fast

Asylum seekers present themselves to immigration at a border crossing and file a claim to asylum. They're then detained (previously as a family unit, but for a while not), while their case goes to proceedings. What law are they breaking by doing that? What possible justification is there for separating them from their children under these circumstances?

^ I believe these stories are either not true, or extremely rare.

The bulk of these "family separations" were plain old border jumpers who didn't effectively use their 20 day grace period to make arrangements for their kids.

[Poopadoop]

Here's a good description of the issue.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...sual-explainer

[BananaStand]

Here's a good description of the issue.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...sual-explainer

Honestly, being from Vox, I expected this to be a demagogue-ish rant full of inaccuracies and anti-Trump rhetoric. Even if it can still be called, that, I actually have NO PROBLEM with this process as described. None.

It says right in there, all these folks had to do was get in line.

But they might be refused....so they cheat??!! WTF??

The line is too long, so they cheat??!! WTF??

If their asylum claim can't withstand regular vetting procedures, then it's probably bullshit anyway. If they need to cheat the system in order to get entry into the US, then I flat out do not give a fuck what ill befalls them. Follow the rules, or fuck off.

[Poopadoop]

Right, so these people are supposed to present themselves at a border crossing, then wait for a long time in a prison for the chance to go stand in front of a judge and have a 25% chance of gaining legal entry. And you're surprised sneaking in seems like a better option to them, and if they do sneak in and get caught they should lose their children.

gg

[Poopadoop]

Oh and this little bit of breaking international law on asylum seekers is OK if you're America and claim to be the moral authority of the world.

Instead of first figuring out whether you should be granted asylum, the administration’s first step is now to deal with the other matter at hand: the misdemeanor for illegal entry.

[OngBonga]

Right, so these people are supposed to present themselves at a border crossing...

Right, so let's say I want to move to USA. I just turn up at the border?

[BananaStand]

Right, so these people are supposed to present themselves at a border crossing, then wait for a long time in a prison for the chance to go stand in front of a judge and have a 25% chance of gaining legal entry.

YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD DO

And you're surprised sneaking in seems like a better option to them

No, I'm not surprised at that. Robbing a bank sounds like a better option than starving to death, that's still not a good reason to do it.

and if they do sneak in and get caught they should lose their children.

No, they should realize that they fucked up, and broke the rules. They should own their actions and accept responsibilities for the offenses they have made. They should take advantage of the 20 day waiting period and make arrangements for their child's safety. Then they should man-up and accept whatever consequences the US government has decided is appropriate for being a selfish rule-breaking ass hole.

Poop, your whole argument seems to be "getting arrested sucks, so we shouldn't make people endure that, unless they're american, then fuck 'em"

You seem to be advocating a policy that allows people to insulate themselves against prosecution by accompanying a child. Do you not see what a perverse incentive that creates? Do you not see how that puts MORE kids in danger!!??