Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[Sparko]

Controlled substance offenses are a separate permanent bar, but green card holders get a one time pass on marijuana possession for personal use under 30 grams.

Also something "relating to a controlled substance" might not be a controlled substance offense if the statute in question pertains to drug schedules of states that are broader than the federal schedules. For example, salvia is on the Texas controlled substance schedules, but not on the federal schedule (it's legal in California, for example). A crime in Texas might not be a controlled substance offense if it criminalized something to do with salvia ... under certain conditions ... it's hard to explain.

I get what you are saying.

[thewriteranon]

Generally speaking, if a state statute is broader than the similar offense in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, then it is not an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.

Whether it is a crime involving moral turpitude or a "particularly serious crime" is another matter, though. CIMTs are not always bars to legal immigration status, though.

[carpedm9587]

Felonies are defined differently across states and territories. What is, for example, a, idk, third degree felony in one state may be a Class A midemeanor in another.

We have to introduce Seer to the relativity/subjectivity of law...

[carpedm9587]

Generally speaking, if a state statute is broader than the similar offense in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, then it is not an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.

Whether it is a crime involving moral turpitude or a "particularly serious crime" is another matter, though. CIMTs are not always bars to legal immigration status, though.

You're messing with their groove...

It's kind of hard to just write them all off as criminals and rapists when you insert nuances!

[thewriteranon]

There are 12 different ways to violate Texas' credit card abuse statute and 17 different ways to violate the assault statute.

That's not directly relevant, but I'm tired and it needed to be said.

[seer]

No. This is what is happening:

Entering a country to apply for asylum is not a crime.
The parents are contacting US authorities and applying for asylum.
The children are being separated from the parents while the request is being considered.

No it is not, they are entering illegally. Even when seeking asylum they can not enter until they have permission, until then they have to remain at a port of entry.

As a matter of policy, the US government is separating families who seek asylum in the US by crossing the border illegallyhttps://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/174431...arated-parents

[carpedm9587]

No it is not, they are entering illegally. Even when seeking asylum they can not enter until they have permission, until then they have to remain at a port of entry.

And yet - the children are not "unaccompanied." They are with their parents when they enter (except the comparatively few cases where relationship cannot be established). They were being separated for no other reason than Trump/Sessions/Miller decided to reverse previous policy of NOT prosecuting adults in family groups so as to not separate families. There is no escaping this reality. There is also no way to avoid the reality that breaking up families is not exactly about "family values." And it is even more egregious when the breakup is done with no mechanism defined for reuniting them. The effect is that the U.S. is effectively using the excuse of illegal entry to kidnap children, increasing the pool of parentless, illegal children already in this country without any of the protections of DACA (not that they exist very much anymore either). And when these children act out (big surprise) they are drugged into submission.

The entire thing reeks. Yes, some people are hoping that their children will be their ticket in, putting us between a rock and a hard place. But there are far more humane ways of dealing with this than what Trump/Sessions/Miller have dreamed up. And that it is so broadly supported by the Republican party - the so-called party of "family values," kind of puts the nail in the coffin of THAT claim.

And all of this in the face of illegal immigration having dropped to 17% of its 2000 peak and the illegal immigration population in the U.S. shrinking since 2007? This is a race-based hoopla designed to rally the right. There is no excuse for it.

[seer]

And yet - the children are not "unaccompanied." They are with their parents when they enter (except the comparatively few cases where relationship cannot be established). They were being separated for no other reason than Trump/Sessions/Miller decided to reverse previous policy of NOT prosecuting adults in family groups so as to not separate families. There is no escaping this reality. There is also no way to avoid the reality that breaking up families is not exactly about "family values." And it is even more egregious when the breakup is done with no mechanism defined for reuniting them. The effect is that the U.S. is effectively using the excuse of illegal entry to kidnap children, increasing the pool of parentless, illegal children already in this country without any of the protections of DACA (not that they exist very much anymore either). And when these children act out (big surprise) they are drugged into submission.

If we are so worried about separating kids from parents then send the parents who come in illegally and their kids back to their home country immediately. Simple - no separation.

[Starlight]

That is why I think that wall is starting to sound like a good idea. Yuuuuge wall.

Except the majority of illegal immigrants to the US now come into the country by airplane on valid visas (tourist, or whatever) and then just don't leave. A wall does nothing to keep them out.

Plus a wall is a bit of a white elephant in terms of costing a heap of money, and being relatively ineffective (people can build tunnels under, or climb over with a rope or a ladder), and annoying everyone who owns properties on the border by sticking a wall across their land.

I do think countries should be able to control their borders, and should act to stop illegal immigration (though I note that the US did have basically open borders until 1924 and allowed virtually anyone in), but I'm also a fan of policies being well thought out and making sense rather than just going from the gut and saying "I think a massive wall sounds like a great idea!"


P.S. The wiki article on illegal immigration in the US has some interesting facts:

[lilpixieofterror]

Except that the total illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has dropped since 2007, when it peaks at 12.2M. So while 300,000 are arriving and being detained, most are being turned away, and there is at least as many )slightly more, actually) leaving each year. And the 300K is a significant drop from when illegal immigration hit 1.6M per year in 2000. At the end of the day, the illegal immigration is a fraction of the problem it was, more are actually leaving than being allowed in each year, and the hype over immigration issues is largely a Trump talking point to rally his base. It was far more urgent 18 years ago and has been continually improving since.

What does that have to do with flooding cities?

Rising rent and housing prices that price middle class families right out of the market directly due to those illegally entering our country and buying up cheaper housing totally no big deal to you?

And housing prices vary by density of population. It is also expensive to buy live in Manhattan, San Francisco, Dallas/Forth Worth, or any other area where the population density climbs. And while some border states have high immigration populations (e.g., California, Texas, New York), several non-border states are also high (Florida, New Jersey) and many border states have little no immigrant population (New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine).

You're kind of all over the map on this one, Pix.

[Tassman]

If we are so worried about separating kids from parents then send the parents who come in illegally and their kids back to their home country immediately. Simple - no separation.

Violence is driving immigration from Central America to the US and you want to send them and their children back??

[Roy]

Based on the source I cited up-thread, the rate of immigration from Mexico is decreasing, as is the overall rate, but the rate of immigration from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador is increasing - suggesting that things are that bad in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

[seer]

Violence is driving immigration from Central America to the US and you want to send them and their children back??

Yes, I want to send them back. If I follow your logic we would have to take in tens of millions since there are so many failed states in South and Central America. They need to take control of their own countries and make them better.

[lilpixieofterror]

Based on the source I cited up-thread, the rate of immigration from Mexico is decreasing, as is the overall rate, but the rate of immigration from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador is increasing - suggesting that things are that bad in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

[thewriteranon]

El Salvador has TPS - temporary protected status. Salvadorans can apply for TPS in the United States to stay here until things calm down there or until they convert it to a green card.