The mexican government tells them like 20 times before they try to cross the border yet they still do it and some die in the process. It's still better for them because in their country there's only violence, rape and drug wars (I've heard stories of people from Panama), so they have pretty much no choice but to flee from their countries
We can't take them. According to international law (which, admittedly I don't put much stock in) we're only required to consider actual refugees who reach our borders first. Meaning, if they don't originate from a bordering nation, or land on our coasts directly from their homeland, and aren't being targeted for death for religious or political reasons, we don't have to help them.
And on top of that, they'd do a lot better to improve their own homeland than to run away to another.
I can guarantee you that if cartels and terrorists start fucking up the States, me and mine won't be running away to Canada, or Europe, or anywhere else.
I feel that's much easier to say when you aren't experiencing it. To save your life and that of your kids? You wouldn't let something like land positions stop you. If your garden means my kids life I imagine I'd rather run
Huh. I suppose the logic of an abusive spouse would speak to a certain demographic. “If you didn’t want to get hit you should have stayed away when I got off work...” “You can’t complain, you know who I am- it’s your choice to stay...” I suppose to that mind we can distill things down and filter out any external factors and just look at a simple relationship of cause and effect. No. “I’m not responsible for what I do if I told you I would do it!” But.... we certainly aren’t responsible for what other people do- but we are responsible for how we react to it no?
I mean- it’s assault if a person spits on you in a bar- but if you then take their children- is: “they spit on me!” A valid defense? It’s a breach of marital contract in a monogamy when a spouse cheats- but we decide if we hit them for it, “revenge cheat,” or even forgive and try and work through or just move on.
I'm much more enthusiastic about taking in woman and children then I am taking fighting aged men.
Now your analogy doesn't quite work, they aren't spouses, they're intruders.
A child trespassing into your backyard to seek shelter and protection from a rapist is someone most if us would gladly shelter and protect. Unfortunately our three bed, two bath home can't accommodate more than a handful. On the other hand a grown man smashing your sliding door to get food from your fridge because his food was eaten by strays, I'd much rather give a swift beatdown until the cops take him away. Or a bullet, if he hurts my dog, wife, or turns out to be the rapist the children under my protection were running from.
In the case of taking children from parents at the border- the ONLY justification is the grounds that having entered US soil the parents are criminals- and as is precedent in such cases a child would be taken from a crimson parent and placed in care until or unless they could be placed with a guardian. But- when this is done there are records kept. A burden of good faith effort to return the children to their next of kin, and if not otherwise barred by law a way for parent and child to reunite after the parents sentence is fulfilled. These are all factors that would otherwise be applied when a child is taken from a parent who is sentenced for a crime but were NOT followed at the border.
“They aren’t citizens though!!” Yes. But they are still people. Human rights aren’t granted by citizenship and kidnapping children- which is what it is to take a child and have no way to return them- is reprehensible.
“They’re criminals though!” Perhaps by letter of the law. But criminals still have rights. Are still people. Our dearest documents provide a basis that all men are created equally. Not all citizens- all humans- and that we pledge certain self evident rights inherent to being a human being. So we can argue over “illegal immigration” but there is NO argument that says these immigrants are less than human and or do not deserve basic rights like the right to see their children again. Justice doesn’t get to ignore the responsibilities of enforcing law because humane treatment is cumbersome to enacting the law. That’s a recipe for a nightmare.
It'd be ideal to separate legitimate asylum seekers from the rest and accommodate them while telling all of the actual intruders to fuck off, but this ain't an ideal world.
Many of the children aren't coming with their families, but are being used as camouflage or sex slaves.
We cannot leave little kids in the company of grown men who we can't even confirm are blood relatives, much less if they're being used or abused.
We cannot open our borders.
We cannot comfortably accommodate hundreds of thousands of people on such short notice.
We cannot allow breaching our sovereignty to me more expedient and comfortable then undergoing our established legal process.
We especially cannot do any of this at the expense of our born and naturalized citizens.
You make some fair points- reasonable. But no one is saying we must leave said children with the adults who may abuse them. If a citizen were to be convicted of a crime besides sex trafficking- an sentenced to prison, we would put the children in CPS, keep records, and either return the children to their next of kin or commit them to CPS. Any allegations of sex trafficking or the like would need be proven by trial to levy on a person, and if no other crimes were proven their children would be returned after they were released from incarceration. None of these things are being done in the case of family separation at the border.
We may or may not be able to prove the children’s relatives- but we took custody of them. So we either try them for a crime or we need to follow proper procedures to return them to the Mexican system so that it can process them. But simply taking kids away because they were with someone crossing the border illegally and then keeping 0 records whatsoever is insane. On the chance a person were tried and found innocent of offense- how would their literally wrongfully taken child be returned at that point when no records were kept or tracking done? How would their child be returned when they are returned to Mexico?
As to the rest of what you say- can we not? There’s a whole bunch of data showing a net positive result to undocumented immigration for the US economy and not so much showing that we are unable to accommodate such numbers of immigrants or that said influx would cause a catastrophe. As to legally immigrating- why can’t we change the law to make it easier to legally immigrate? Most of the arguments against said immigration center around things like how we can’t vet undocumented people or how tracking them in country is a pain- so...
If we know that large numbers will come regardless of the penalties and dangers, and children will be put into CPS at tax payer expense and the prison sentence for illegal immigration is 6-24 months at tax payer expense on US soil- and over 30,000 undocumented persons are in US detention daily.... wouldn’t it seem that a change to immigration requirements or a status of provisional or partial citizenship which could be more easily and readily attained by the types of people who make illegal crossings- might help there?
That if millions of undocumented people make it across the border without a trail or trace- that we might as well allow millions to cross legally and have some ability to screen them and know who they are and be able to identify and locate them should a crime or other reason to do so come up?
Wow. Will this be your first or second Nobel prize? That’s the sort of solution that if only the world had known it existed could have saved so much trouble. Geez. I wonder why these people don’t just come legally right? Instead of facing death and danger and legal trouble they could just stroll right up and come in legally. It’s almost as if there are some sort of barriers that make trekking across a desert with outlaws for hire and spending the rest of your life avoiding capture a viable options for hundreds of thousands of people.... huh. But yeah. It probably just really is this simple huh?
Sure, it’s simple if you do the extreme close up this picture has. Zoom it out to where they’re from and it gets a little bit more complicated.
Arrogant know-nothing.
Also, morally: Are you SURE your stance is brutality (or implied threats of bad action) aren't a problem because it’s grinding down an issue you’d rather not have? Are you *absolutely certain* this is your platform? Are you 100% bought in this is the right way to think?
You just need to be very, very clear that this is a place you want to stand. If an action is not acceptable, defining a group as deserving it doesn’t change that fact. Period. There’s not nearly the room for moral equivocation you wish there was. Playing (or being) a know-nothing doesn’t change anything, least of all culpability for the development of morally coherent self-philosophy.
And on top of that, they'd do a lot better to improve their own homeland than to run away to another.
I can guarantee you that if cartels and terrorists start fucking up the States, me and mine won't be running away to Canada, or Europe, or anywhere else.
Now your analogy doesn't quite work, they aren't spouses, they're intruders.
A child trespassing into your backyard to seek shelter and protection from a rapist is someone most if us would gladly shelter and protect. Unfortunately our three bed, two bath home can't accommodate more than a handful. On the other hand a grown man smashing your sliding door to get food from your fridge because his food was eaten by strays, I'd much rather give a swift beatdown until the cops take him away. Or a bullet, if he hurts my dog, wife, or turns out to be the rapist the children under my protection were running from.
“They’re criminals though!” Perhaps by letter of the law. But criminals still have rights. Are still people. Our dearest documents provide a basis that all men are created equally. Not all citizens- all humans- and that we pledge certain self evident rights inherent to being a human being. So we can argue over “illegal immigration” but there is NO argument that says these immigrants are less than human and or do not deserve basic rights like the right to see their children again. Justice doesn’t get to ignore the responsibilities of enforcing law because humane treatment is cumbersome to enacting the law. That’s a recipe for a nightmare.
Many of the children aren't coming with their families, but are being used as camouflage or sex slaves.
We cannot leave little kids in the company of grown men who we can't even confirm are blood relatives, much less if they're being used or abused.
We cannot open our borders.
We cannot comfortably accommodate hundreds of thousands of people on such short notice.
We cannot allow breaching our sovereignty to me more expedient and comfortable then undergoing our established legal process.
We especially cannot do any of this at the expense of our born and naturalized citizens.
Arrogant know-nothing.
Also, morally: Are you SURE your stance is brutality (or implied threats of bad action) aren't a problem because it’s grinding down an issue you’d rather not have? Are you *absolutely certain* this is your platform? Are you 100% bought in this is the right way to think?
You just need to be very, very clear that this is a place you want to stand. If an action is not acceptable, defining a group as deserving it doesn’t change that fact. Period. There’s not nearly the room for moral equivocation you wish there was. Playing (or being) a know-nothing doesn’t change anything, least of all culpability for the development of morally coherent self-philosophy.