• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Family Separation at the Border: US citizens are now being detained

A Migrant Boy Rejoins His Mother, but He’s Not the Same

A 3-year-old boy who was separated from his mother has been pretending to handcuff and vaccinate people around him, behavior he almost certainly witnessed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, according to those working with him. A pair of young siblings burst into tears when they spotted police officers on the street.

Most children who are experiencing problems so far display acute anxiety around routines that separate them briefly from their parents, such as when the adult bathes or goes into another room, said those who are monitoring these reports.
Click to expand...

Often, parent and child were prevented from communicating for weeks or longer. In limbo and confused, many children likely internalized the separation as a punishment, experts say.

Decades of research have concluded that children traumatically separated from their parents have a high likelihood of developing emotional problems, cognitive delays and long-term trauma. More recent studies have found that separation can impair memory and normal production of cortisol, a hormone produced in response to stress.
Click to expand...

Asked if he got hugs from his foster family, Thiago wagged his finger “no,” and then softly said, “They didn’t like me.”
Click to expand...
 
IamThunderbolt said:
A) How do you define secure, and at what cost? Border crossings account for fewer than 1/3 of all undocumented cases. What's the plan for the majority of undocumented immigrants who cross the border legally? Harsh enforcement makes these populations more vulnerable to forced labor, peonage, and sexual exploitation.

B) Why is points-based (merit) any more drug/trafficking averse than other systems, whether it be family reunification or the current diversity lottery (which was enacted to boost European immigrants)?

C) How would your system handle asylum seekers?

D) What do you propose for enforcement? The methods of enforcement drive trafficking significantly and shifts power dynamic in favor of the traffickers.
Click to expand...

Let me address your points one at a time:

A. Secure borders are borders where only those are allowed to cross, who have permission to cross, and only people with valid permits remain. Secure borders are the foundation on which a policy can be based. Without secure borders, no policy makes any sense because it can't be enforced. Therefore, without secure borders all policies are worthless, pointless and unenforcable, not worth even the trouble of being announced.

I am not sure where the 1/3 stat comes from but assuming that this is correct then the other 2/3 presumably includes the people who enter the US legally on temporary visas, or with temporary permission, but then do not leave and thus become illegal alliens. People who crossed the border legally but then failed to leave when their permission to stay expired without being renewed should be given an opportunity to apply for longer visas, which properly justified could be granted. But they would have to take steps to legalize their stay or be expelled if they refuse. (I think that companies and individuals that hire illegals should be punished with severe fines.)

Serious enforcement of border security would put the human traffickers out of business because their ability to smuggle people over the border would be severely curtailed.

B. Secure borders would curtail drug and human trafficking. If you make a crime harder and the punishment more severe, you will reduce the crime in question. If you make cars harder to steal and the punishment for auto theft more severe, and enforce these laws, then you will reduce, not increase, auto theft. A point-based immigration system would help both the country and the immigrants.

C. People seeking asylum go to a neighboring country and apply for asylum. If they have a legitimate request, it should be granted. If they want to come to the US from the country of original asylum, they should apply under the points system.

D. Without enforcement, no policy can be helpful and all policies assist human trafficking. People who are in the US illegally need to take steps to legalize their status or face being expelled and banned.

The modern western welfare state is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. People are simply going to have to choose: either secure borders with a sensible and enforced immigration policy, or the decline and demise of the welfare state programs that all citizens and legal residents have paid for and are paying for. I think that the choice is obvious.
 
sailordeac said:
Let me address your points one at a time:

A. Secure borders are borders where only those are allowed to cross, who have permission to cross, and only people with valid permits remain. Secure borders are the foundation on which a policy can be based. Without secure borders, no policy makes any sense because it can't be enforced. Therefore, without secure borders all policies are worthless, pointless and unenforcable, not worth even the trouble of being announced.

I am not sure where the 1/3 stat comes from but assuming that this is correct then the other 2/3 presumably includes the people who enter the US legally on temporary visas, or with temporary permission, but then do not leave and thus become illegal alliens. People who crossed the border legally but then failed to leave when their permission to stay expired without being renewed should be given an opportunity to apply for longer visas, which properly justified could be granted. But they would have to take steps to legalize their stay or be expelled if they refuse. (I think that companies and individuals that hire illegals should be punished with severe fines.)

Serious enforcement of border security would put the human traffickers out of business because their ability to smuggle people over the border would be severely curtailed.

B. Secure borders would curtail drug and human trafficking. If you make a crime harder and the punishment more severe, you will reduce the crime in question. If you make cars harder to steal and the punishment for auto theft more severe, and enforce these laws, then you will reduce, not increase, auto theft. A point-based immigration system would help both the country and the immigrants.

C. People seeking asylum go to a neighboring country and apply for asylum. If they have a legitimate request, it should be granted. If they want to come to the US from the country of original asylum, they should apply under the points system.

D. Without enforcement, no policy can be helpful and all policies assist human trafficking. People who are in the US illegally need to take steps to legalize their status or face being expelled and banned.

The modern western welfare state is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. People are simply going to have to choose: either secure borders with a sensible and enforced immigration policy, or the decline and demise of the welfare state programs that all citizens and legal residents have paid for and are paying for. I think that the choice is obvious.
Click to expand...

Friendly reminder that sailor is a white supremacist and this is all white supremacist bullshit.
 
Is this true?

"B. Secure borders would curtail drug and human trafficking. If you make a crime harder and the punishment more severe, you will reduce the crime in question. If you make cars harder to steal and the punishment for auto theft more severe, and enforce these laws, then you will reduce, not increase, auto theft. A point-based immigration system would help both the country and the immigrants."

Intuitively it seems like it would be - but I'm curious about the causative effect re: increase punishment = decrease crime.
 
Also how do you best secure a border as long as our border with Mexico? That's a primary source of the current debate where reasonable minds differ.
 
"The modern western welfare state is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. People are simply going to have to choose: either secure borders with a sensible and enforced immigration policy, or the decline and demise of the welfare state programs that all citizens and legal residents have paid for and are paying for. I think that the choice is obvious."

I've read this several times and still don't know what you're saying or why this is a mutually exclusive option.

Even assuming every thing that you've said is correct (which I dispute) how does any of this mesh with the reality of an increasingly globalized world and economy?
 
How do you make a border more secure from foot traffic than surrounding it with hundreds of square miles of desert that kills probably 100s of people per year attempting to cross the border? Guard towers with gun turrets would be less effective.
 
Last edited:
birdman said:
How do you make a border more secure from foot traffic than surrounding it with hundreds of square miles of desert that kills probably 100s of people per year attempting to cross the border? Guard towers with gun turrets would be less effective.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I think the only person capable of answering that question is a dementia-suffering failed teacher from the eastern bloc.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
"The modern western welfare state is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. People are simply going to have to choose: either secure borders with a sensible and enforced immigration policy, or the decline and demise of the welfare state programs that all citizens and legal residents have paid for and are paying for. I think that the choice is obvious."

I've read this several times and still don't know what you're saying or why this is a mutually exclusive option.

Even assuming every thing that you've said is correct (which I dispute) how does any of this mesh with the reality of an increasingly globalized world and economy?
Click to expand...

It also rings hollow when it comes from the same people that are trying to destroy the minimal welfare system we already have
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Is this true?

"B. Secure borders would curtail drug and human trafficking. If you make a crime harder and the punishment more severe, you will reduce the crime in question. If you make cars harder to steal and the punishment for auto theft more severe, and enforce these laws, then you will reduce, not increase, auto theft. A point-based immigration system would help both the country and the immigrants."

Intuitively it seems like it would be - but I'm curious about the causative effect re: increase punishment = decrease crime.
Click to expand...

Have mandatory minimum sentences curtailed non-violent drug-related offenses?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Is this true?

"B. Secure borders would curtail drug and human trafficking. If you make a crime harder and the punishment more severe, you will reduce the crime in question. If you make cars harder to steal and the punishment for auto theft more severe, and enforce these laws, then you will reduce, not increase, auto theft. A point-based immigration system would help both the country and the immigrants."

Intuitively it seems like it would be - but I'm curious about the causative effect re: increase punishment = decrease crime.
Click to expand...


Making the crime harder to commit will definitely reduce the crime. If you make the penalty certain enough and severe enough, you will also reduce the crime.
 
How do you make a border more physically secure than surrounding it with 100s of square miles of inhospitable desert?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
"The modern western welfare state is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. People are simply going to have to choose: either secure borders with a sensible and enforced immigration policy, or the decline and demise of the welfare state programs that all citizens and legal residents have paid for and are paying for. I think that the choice is obvious."

I've read this several times and still don't know what you're saying or why this is a mutually exclusive option.

Even assuming every thing that you've said is correct (which I dispute) how does any of this mesh with the reality of an increasingly globalized world and economy?
Click to expand...

The globalized world and the globalized economy can only function if the nation states - which by definition have borders - have laws and enforce these laws. Lawlessness is not a prescription for economic growth, commerce, security, travel, globalization, or much of anything else, except maybe rape, robbery, and violence.

Open borders and the welfare state are incompatible because if you open the borders people from politically and economically dysfunctional countries will flood into those countries that still function reasonably well and overwhelm their public services.
 
birdman said:
How do you make a border more physically secure than surrounding it with 100s of square miles of inhospitable desert?
Click to expand...

Seems like people who are brave and persistent enough to make it across that are people who could benefit this country. That's one hell of a entrance exam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top