Ted Cruz introduces legislation to keep immigrant families together after they cross the border

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

So,the ORIGINAL "Word of God" has been replaced with the "New and Improved Word of God"?

I'm not going to argue theology with an Atheist.

[Cyber Liberty]

If I were President Jazzhead,  I would release asylum seekers (with no other evidence of criminal activity, such as human trafficking) into the U.S. pending their asylum hearing provided they agree to confine themselves to a designated city or town and wear an ankle monitoring bracelet so their locations can be tracked if necessary.

I might agree with that, except you don't seem to think crossing the border illegally is "criminal activity."  Therefore, "No soap, Doc."

[SirLinksALot]

these are asylum seekers,  parents and kids escaping oppression. 

Who are "these"?

Who are being "oppressed"?

Last I heard, Mexico is not a country that oppresses its people. Are we going to accept everyone simply because their husbands or significant others are abusing them? Should we accept every rape victim from Central America as asylum seekers?

Every year thousands of children get raped, abused, and sold. Right here in America. Many of these kids are immigrants, and a key tactic traffickers use is to pretend that they are their parents.

BTW, These migrants from Central America claim that the chaos in their home countries amounts to “persecution.” If so, then by international law they must seek refuge in the “first safe country.” That was Mexico, which didn’t offer them asylum, but shipped them north to us.

We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement. We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free. This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border.

Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy or our LEGAL port of entry ( why does Jazzhead keep ignoring this key word by the way ?)

And a word about separating kids from their parents. MOST OF THESE SOB STORIES ARE BALONEY.

 Rght now — 10,000 of the 12,000 — were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated.  THAT's 80% OF CASES !!!

So somehow we’ve conflated everything. But there is two separate issues.

10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone.

We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care. There is videos, there is TVs....  And you worry about the optics? WHY? Oh because you want to give credibility to the press that hates Trump.

[dfwgator]

@SirLinksALot

 

[SirLinksALot]

If I were President Jazzhead,  I would release asylum seekers (with no other evidence of criminal activity, such as human trafficking)

And how do you determine such evidence unless you incarcerate them first and interrogate them? You seem to want us to trust everything they tell us without verifying their stories. With this, you are going to signal to every single potential illegal entrant that they will be released immediately simply because they use the magic word "asylum seeker" and they bring a child with them.

As I said before, over 80% of those children who came here came ALONE. WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS.

[INVAR]

Who are "these"?

Who are being "oppressed"?

Last I heard, Mexico is not a country that oppresses its people. Are we going to accept everyone simply because their husbands or significant others are abusing them? Should we accept every rape victim from Central America as asylum seekers?

Every year thousands of children get raped, abused, and sold. Right here in America. Many of these kids are immigrants, and a key tactic traffickers use is to pretend that they are their parents.

BTW, These migrants from Central America claim that the chaos in their home countries amounts to “persecution.” If so, then by international law they must seek refuge in the “first safe country.” That was Mexico, which didn’t offer them asylum, but shipped them north to us.

We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement. We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free. This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border.

Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy or our LEGAL port of entry ( why does Jazzhead keep ignoring this key word by the way ?)

And a word about separating kids from their parents. MOST OF THESE SOB STORIES ARE BALONEY.

 Rght now — 10,000 of the 12,000 — were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated.  THAT's 80% OF CASES !!!

So somehow we’ve conflated everything. But there is two separate issues.

10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone.

We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care. There is videos, there is TVs....  And you worry about the optics? WHY? Oh because you want to give credibility to the press that hates Trump.

You're wasting your time trying to have an honest discussion with a Leftist Advocate and Agenda Pusher pretending to be Conservative because they think we're too stupid to recognize what they really are and doing here on this board.

All those facts you cited are going to be IGNORED in order to push the narrative that these are 'asylum seekers' and 'not criminals' and that they have a right to be here.

[sneakypete]

Show me where in the law that incarceration is required.  Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.   I agree that the law requires that IF an individual is incarcerated,  her kids must be separated.   But it is Trump administration policy to incarcerate asylum seekers.  It is not the  law.

@Jazzhead

<NO MORE PERSONAL INSULTS>

People arrested for Misdemeanors,EVEN US CITIZENS can be locked up pending court appearances and the outcome of their cases IF THEY DON'T HAVE PERMANENT LEGAL US ADDRESSES.

Show me an illegal alien with a legal US address.

[txradioguy]

I might agree with that, except you don't seem to think crossing the border illegally is "criminal activity."  Therefore, "No soap, Doc."

President Jazzy believes that some law breakers are more equal than others.

[GrouchoTex]

Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy or our LEGAL port of entry ( why does Jazzhead keep ignoring this key word by the way ?)

Frankly, because he wants to.
It doesn't fit the narrative he is trying to push.
He can't paint us as lazy American redneck hayseed bigots if we make sense, therefore, he and others who hold this view ignore it.

[txradioguy]

Show me where in the law that incarceration is required.  Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.   I agree that the law requires that IF an individual is incarcerated,  her kids must be separated.   But it is Trump administration policy to incarcerate asylum seekers.  It is not the  law.

Ok.  You asked for it.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien


(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#

You've never been inside a real court room have you?

[Cyber Liberty]

Ok.  You asked for it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#

You've never been inside a real court room have you?

Remember "My Cousin Vinny?" 

"Yeah, I'm a 'lawyer'.  But I don't know anything about courts!  They only taught us about Torts and stuff!"

[Jazzhead]

Ok.  You asked for it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#

You've never been inside a real court room have you?

Fail.  The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required.   The law allows incarceration as an option.  It is not required.   As I noted above, past administrations mostly released asylum seekers (absent evidence of real criminal activity) into the U.S. pending their hearings, rather than incarcerated them.   The Trump Administration is choosing to incarcerate, and as a result is required by law to separate parents from children.   

"Zero tolerance" has consequences.  One, it appears, is likely the loss of our Republican majority.   

[Jazzhead]

Frankly, because he wants to.
It doesn't fit the narrative he is trying to push.
He can't paint us as lazy American redneck hayseed bigots if we make sense, therefore, he and others who hold this view ignore it.

Again -  I understand the difference between crossing the border illegal and arriving at a port of entry.   I am not suggesting that the law not be enforced.   The law says that the mere act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.   The Trump administration has effected a "zero tolerance" policy and is incarcerating asylum seekers for mere misdemeanors.   That means it must separate parents and children.   That is obviously its intent - to deter families from crossing the border illegally.  But the blowback has been tremendous - as well as it should be,  because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane.  These are, to most reasonable minds,  families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions.   That doesn't mean they get a free ticket.  But should it mean they should be treated as common criminals,  forced at the end of an arduous, courageous trek to be separated from their children?       

The Trump administration will reap what it sows. 

[Sanguine]

Again -  I understand the difference between crossing the border illegal and arriving at a port of entry.   I am not suggesting that the law not be enforced.   The law says that the mere act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.   The Trump administration has effected a "zero tolerance" policy and is incarcerating asylum seekers for mere misdemeanors.   That means it must separate parents and children.   That is obviously its intent - to deter families from crossing the border illegally.  But the blowback has been tremendous - as well as it should be,  because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane.   

The Trump administration will reap what it sows.

The Trump administration will reap what prior administrations have sown.

[edpc]

The Trump administration will reap what prior administrations have sown.

Doesn't every administration?

[Jazzhead]

I might agree with that, except you don't seem to think crossing the border illegally is "criminal activity."  Therefore, "No soap, Doc."

It is a misdemeanor.   

[TomSea]

This should be up to the legislature, but the Senate can't even fix a tire.

[driftdiver]

It is a misdemeanor.

@Jazzhead
First time its a misdemeanor
Second and each successive time its a felony

but you knew that

How about we just model Mexico's laws? 

[INVAR]

Fail.  The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required.   The law allows incarceration as an option.  It is not required.

Ah yes, the law is always 'optional' when it comes to you Leftists isn't it?

It is a misdemeanor.   

Well, we LIKE incarceration for lawbreakers who sneak into the country and get caught - pending their deportation, regardless of how benign you insist the crime is.

You try sneaking into any other third world country and see what happens to you when you get caught.  It is past time to reciprocate.

"Zero tolerance" has consequences.  One, it appears, is likely the loss of our Republican majority.   

Funny how 'zero tolerance' only works in one direction with you people.  But how dare anyone refuse to tolerate or serve deviant behaviors you advocate for.

[txradioguy]

Fail.  The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required.   
 

And I showed you the law where it says that it is required.  Not my fault you didn't read the entire section of U.S. Code.

But then again you're really good and reading what you want to and disregarding the important parts.

And then consider this...most illegals tossed in jail in this country aren't the ones caught at the border.  They get pulled over for traffic violations or some other kind of interaction with the local law enforcement is involved and a form of identification is required to be produced.

When the illegal alien can't produce the proper identification and it's determined they are here illegally they are taken into custody and put in jail and ICE is notified.

So yes counselor there are very clear and defined instances where incarnation is required.

These little angels you're so protective of don't just break federal law by illegally entering our country they also drive without proper licensing...proper vehicle registration or insurance.  OR the id they do manage to produce is forged...another violation of U.S. law requiring arrest.

How many arrestable offenses do you want to let these little darlings get away with before you stop protecting them?

[txradioguy]

It is a misdemeanor.

It's still a violation of the law.

[Bigun]

@Jazzhead
First time its a misdemeanor
Second and each successive time its a felony

but you knew that

How about we just model Mexico's laws?

I would be for adopting Mexico's immigration laws as our own today!

[sneakypete]

Fail.  The question I asked was to show where incarceration is required.   The law allows incarceration as an option.  It is not required.

 

Yes,it IS required if the defendant doesn't have a legal address or enough money to post a bond set high enough to assure they will show up.

There is no such critter as an illegal alien with a legal local address,and if he or she has enough cash in US Dollars to post bond,they ain't poor people seeking refuge.

[Cyber Liberty]

It is a misdemeanor.

A misdemeanor is still "criminal."  Doesn't have to be a Felony.

[GrouchoTex]

Again -  I understand the difference between crossing the border illegal and arriving at a port of entry.   I am not suggesting that the law not be enforced.   The law says that the mere act of crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.   The Trump administration has effected a "zero tolerance" policy and is incarcerating asylum seekers for mere misdemeanors.   That means it must separate parents and children.   That is obviously its intent - to deter families from crossing the border illegally.  But the blowback has been tremendous - as well as it should be,  because the practice is, when there is no evidence of other criminal acts, inhumane.  These are, to most reasonable minds,  families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions.   That doesn't mean they get a free ticket.  But should it mean they should be treated as common criminals,  forced at the end of an arduous, courageous trek to be separated from their children?       

The Trump administration will reap what it sows.

Well, you've moderated somewhat.
At least you understand now, that if they really were Asylum seekers, they would go to an embassy or a proper port of entry.
That's a start.

You frame of mind:  "These are, to most reasonable minds,  families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions."

My frame of mind: You are putting a lot of faith, and run the risk of your fellow citizens losing anything from their livelihood, their property, even their own lives on an assumption that, "These are, to most reasonable minds,  families seeking to escape from intolerable conditions."

If their first act is to not come in through legal means, not unlike catching someone trespassing, wouldn't it be reasonable that the first reaction is to assume they are here for nefarious reasons? Is it the fact that they bring the kids along enough to run the risk anyway?

You are taking a gamble, with more than just yourself at stake, that you cannot really be sure of.
Your gambling that they are great, salt-of-the-earth people.
They may be, and they may not be.
Guess what? Criminals can have kids, too.