Loki Loc: Georgia

So, nuts and bolts, what is your own solution for our overwhelmed immigration/asylum procedures which increased to unmanageable levels under the previous administration? How would you fix it?
I have to agree with PennyLynn. I did not read anything in Sessions speech that supports your claim as I understood it.

Bug58

I agree with you, heck Session's has called for hiring MORE immigration judges so that they can move these things along faster.

cbpat1

It wasn’t Trump that put them in this situation, it was the parents who knew full well this could happen when they chose to break the law by illegally break into our country, simple as that. If the parents don’t care enough about their own children that they choose to put them in that position, the blame goes squarely on their shoulders.

straightUp Loc: California

I think some of those women have no choice but to risk it. I don't know what YOU think motivates them to improper entry or if you even care. You have never shown any sense of compassion for immigrants.

Loki Loc: Georgia

On the contrary, I have spoken up repeatedly in defense of LEGAL immigrants, and the bullshit that they go through out of respect for our laws and the desire to do things legally, while people like you bemoan the fate of wetback criminals.

Morgan

Well, your detector must be off, by a fairly good margin. When someone refers to bowing to you, I would call that not only smug but I would also go as far as to say malicious. I have been speaking sincerely simply of concerns for the direction of our country, where we're headed and trying to be accommodating, only to find the other being malevolent. That's fine I have simply redefined our(hers and mine) opp relationship and have made the adjustments, easy fix. Foolishly I thought it was mutual out of some respect but obviously, I was wrong.

Loki Loc: Georgia

When someone says they bow to your superior knowledge it is a polite way of saying you might just be right. You are taking offense where none was intended. I use that phrase myself, in a courteous context, which is what PennyLynn did.

Morgan

As I said it's about interpretation, and what some see as a clear push against those seeking asylum.
ATTACKS ON ASYLUM
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST

The argument is clearly stated here: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/Fear-Mongering-Alternative-Facts.pdf

I would add some quoted references but it doesn't allow me to do so.

Morgan

Maybe you didn't read all of her comments from her extended library, I guess we will disagree on that, as immediately following her comment she then continued to mention how I couldn't back up what I said. I gave her the link I had used for the thread, but that wasn't enough I suppose she wanted me to track down the author's source and references for his comments/opinion.

I don't like contentious discussions but no matter how hard I try to speak with people with opposite viewpoints, it is rare. If I am wrong I am happy to apologize for the misunderstanding, if that is the truth.

Morgan

In the condition of a mother and child versus a single male possible criminal, I would say their intentions for coming here to be quite obvious. A poor desperate woman without any support is running here in the hopes of improving the conditions of herself and her child, only to find herself in another compromise, now even worse, to have her child taken away. No matter how you want to slice it...it is inhumane. It is people who are poor, cannot afford an attorney, and are ignorant of the correct procedures, and are simply fleeing abusive conditions.

Using children as a punishment tool is NOT the way to go.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, it's unfortunate... the format I use is what the original version of the software driving this site promoted through it's markup language (tags). A while ago, this site upgraded it's software and the new version doesn't handle that format very well, specifically in it's "quote reply" action. But you can still READ the format and I still use it because it still provides the advantage of separating concerns within a post. It also helps reduce the confusion about who said what.

Fortunately in this case, most of the statements in your post are predicated on a single faulty assumption, so I can condense my response to just addressing that assumption in a format you might find more... palatable.

Pennylynn said:
The infancy defense at common law intended to strike a balance between the impropriety of punishing minors who are not responsible for their actions, and the dangers of categorically immunizing young people from prosecution, thus allowing them opportunity to commit serious crimes with impunity. In the US, Statutory legislation has largely superseded the common law infancy defense through the establishment of a dual adult/juvenile justice system. Children under a certain age, usually between sixteen and eighteen depending on the state, are eligible for prosecution in a more lenient and rehabilitation-oriented juvenile justice system, while most states strictly bar the prosecution of very young children (usually under seven, though some states hold the age limit at ten.) But, again this is felony law.

straightUp responded with:
There is no law that makes that restriction. You are simply going by precedence. So far, Defense of Infancy has only been used in felony cases such as murder, because for the most part, prosecutors would never dream of punishing people for being carried across a border by their mothers when they are babies. This is what you call unprecedented... In these cases a court would need to revert to to the same arguments that created the precedents for the felony cases, which is the Defense of Infancy. The problem is that a 17-year old murder who happens to be a U.S. citizen can appeal to the courts while immigrants can't. So the precedents don't get established. That can change of lower courts start prosecuting the DOJ, which I am already writing letters to my representatives about.

You did make one statement where my response was incorrect...

Pennylynn said:
The proper take away from this is it is a crime, this includes those crossing the U.S. border with a "coyote" or buying a fake U.S. passport, a foreign national who enters the U.S. illegally can be both convicted of a crime and held responsible for a civil violation under the U.S. immigration laws.

straightUp responded with:
I disagree with your conclusion. I think when a law only prescribes civil penalties, the proper take away is that the violations are civil infraction.

When I was reading 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - I made a hasty assumption myself, thinking that since there is a section titled "Improper time or place; civil penalties" there should also be a section that specifies "criminal" in it's title. I have since re-read the law (after some much needed sleep) and realized that punishments are prescribed in all the sections and as Loki pointed out some of them make references to Title 18. So, I retract my disagreement on criminal status, but I think I'm right on the Defense of Infancy being applicable to ANY punishment not just felonies in which case, I think my original point still stands.

One thing I wish more people understood about the judicial law is that it's a means to an end and sometimes that end can be immoral. This is why we have legal concepts like the Defense of Infancy. This is also why some of us find these "legal" conversations frustrating. It's good to get a grasp on what the law is saying but we shouldn't loose sight of what the law is doing. I'm sure most of the folks who uphold immigration laws as gospel are the first to condemn the regulatory laws that Trump is repealing.

Morgan initiated this topic with a concern about the policy of taking children away from their parents. It's a moral concern. Her question is appealing to our moral sense of humanity and yet I read the topic and I see how the moral question is buried under a pile of disputes over legal definitions. There is a very clear aversion to confronting the moral question. Can you explain that?

straightUp Loc: California

Geez Loki... wearing your wading boots today? "I will bow to your superior knowledge" is a polite way of saying "you might just be right."? I don't think so. And when such a statement is preceded by "I have a full library on law and in particular the immigration decisions. In 1999 there are over 24 volumes ..... and I am not inclined at this moment to read them all"... that pretty much confirms the sarcasm. If anything, it was a polite way of being sanctimonious.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I do happen to have a very large library, when my Poppa passed away I inherited his books... and as time progressed I have added to it. Somehow, I can not bring myself to get rid of a book....they are old friends with whom I visit often. Because I have the immigration law books, I simply wanted to know if you could give the reference number. I thought you would have it because you introduced the "decision" in your comments. It seems that you do not have the reference and have forgotten where you read about it.... and that is fine. I could not introduce facts, discuss the content, or the merits regarding that decision.... one can not discuss what they do not know. With that, I could only say that you possessed greater knowledge on the subject than I.

At this point, I do not think we can hold an honest and open conversation on facts... I fear that I may hurt your feeling again, and this is a pity because I thought that you had provided legitimate points that I had not considered. So, I wish you a long and prosperous life.

Loki Loc: Georgia

From the figures contained in the link you provided, Morgan, the immigration system is overwhelmed with bogus asylum claims. My question to you was what is your solution? Specifics, nuts and bolts, not some vague generalization or statement of principle.

Morgan

Thanks Straight, the wading is pretty thick here.