What do you call it when a child is forcibly removed from his parents? Attorney General Jeff Sessions calls it a deterrent to illegal immigration. Webster's Dictionary calls it kidnapping — "to seize and hold or carry off a person against that person's will." This was Trump's policy for deterring illegal immigration when the vast majority of refugees crossing the border were doing so for the first time, which is a misdemeanor (i.e. like a traffic violation).

When aides to the president recommended he send more judges to the border (the Department of Justice budget includes 150 more than are now in service), he refused preferring to send 21 more prosecutors to address these misdemeanors.

If Trump would send more judges he probably could reduce the number of days spent processing asylum claims to 20 days, which is consistent with the legal limit for confining children, and would negate the perceived need to separate the families.

Trump insists that is being strong on the border and illegal immigration. Bullying poor, weak and vulnerable women and children is not strength. It is weak, pathetic and abhorrent behavior. When you combine incompetence and insidiousness with poor planning, chaos will surely follow. It has!

Jerome Bourgeois

League City

Locations

(41) comments

Carlos Ponce

"to seize and hold or carry off a person against that person's will." Yes, we forced them out of their countries to come here - NO IT DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!
"What do you call it when a child is forcibly removed from his parents?"
Look at the reasons why this occurs.
1. Familial relationships cannot be established. In simple words that person is NOT the kid's parent. Who is the adult then? A child trafficker, a child sex trafficker, a child labor trafficker? Some stranger who grabbed some poor kid off the street and dragged him to a country where he thinks just because he has a child the Liberal bleeding hearts will allow him in? (Shut up do as I tell you or you will die-it happens!) Did the actual parents want to send their child to the US and placed him with someone traveling here?
2. The parent proves to be a danger to the child. Oh, yes Jerome says we should keep them together even if it means the child getting hurt or killed.
3. The parent is a criminal. This occurs even among the native born.
Border Chief Manuel Padilla gives the example of a known MS-13 gang member and killer who came with his 1-year old son in tow. Keep them together, Jerome? Or do you want 1-year olds kept with killers?
These reasons were given by by DHS secretaries Jeh Johnson (Obama) and Kirsten Nielson (Trump).

Josh Butler

Not quite as cut and dried as Jerome presumes, eh? The Left's willingness to gloss over the complexities of this issue exposes their hypocrisy and fake outrage.

Emile Pope

You fail to mention that anyone crossing the border for any reason is prosecuted as a criminal and their children are taken away. And trying to make it appear that MS-13 members are the only people crossing the border is totally wrong.

Josh Butler

They were never separated if they entered through a POE. They were only separated if they tried to cross illegally.

Gary Miller

Josh! A fact the liberal media has tried to cover up.

George Croix

That's not true. Blatant dishonesty.
People crossing the border at established ports of entry and requesting asylum properly or pre-requesting proper legal entry into the country are NOT prosecuted for doing so. They are processed.
People entering the country ILLEGALLY are NOW being prosecuted as criminals, which is what is supposed to happen to people who commit a crime...
Comprende ilegal?
Totally wrong describes exactly your assertion that anyone is trying to make it look like MS13 are the ONLY ones crossing. That's yet another hysterical left claim, which of course is now redundant. Not the ONLY, but certainly the most dangerous, are MS13, except to Nancy and her acolytes...
Why say stuff like that, Pope, that is demonstrably untrue. Is it because someone 'might' believe it who's not paying attention?

Emile Pope

But they are not accepting them at these ports of entry and refusing to accept asylum requests. Guess you forgot to mention that...reminds me of in the 60's when they told Black people trying to register to vote that they could only register to vote from 12 to 1 PM. The time that all of the clerks were at lunch...

Paul Hyatt

Duh, crossing the border illegally is a CRIME, hence they automatically are criminals....

Carlos Ponce

Emile posts: "anyone crossing the border for any reason is prosecuted as a criminal and their children are taken away."
Not everyone. Just for those THREE reasons given by Obama's DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and Trump's DHS Secretary Kirsten Nielson.

Emile Pope

"anyone crossing the border for any reason is prosecuted as a criminal and their children are taken away"
Which people aren't?

Carlos Ponce

Which people aren't: I wasn't I crossed the border many times - no prosecution.
My mother wasn't because she had legal status (green card) in the United States.
My grandparents, cousins, their children weren't. They had obtained visas at the American consulate in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon.
Anyone crossing with a legally obtained visa isn't.
People going to a recognized PORT OF ENTRY seeking asylum aren't. Unless it's proven that they aren't the parents, are a danger to their children or are criminals.
"anyone crossing the border for any reason is prosecuted as a criminal and their children are taken away." FALSE

Emile Pope

Anyone comfortable with people seeking asylum having their children taken away from them needs a course in basic humanity...

Carlos Ponce

Is everyone who crosses the border with a child that child's parent? Don't be gullible.

Roxanne Gray

We must follow the laws to the letter without discrimination.

David Smith

While your in the dictionary... look up the definition of ILLEGAL ALIEN...
Like it or not .... we have LAWS in this country... and you dont get to pick and choose the ones in which YOU want to CIRCUMVENT..
The kids are being used as a tool to get THEIR parents entry...
Trump is doing what we elected him to do...ENFORCE THE LAW...
If you don't like the law.. get it changed..

Diane Turski

The one important thing that Trump has accomplished is to show everyone how many laws need to change to close the loopholes that he has slithered through in order to attack our rule of law. I expect there will be many laws changed when we elect honorable representatives to replace the Trump swamp dwellers.

George Croix

Nice try co-opting 'swamp dwellers'.....
Flashback???

Paul Hyatt

President Trump was just following the way that Obummer had been doing business down at the border and I did not hear any of you leftist progressives whine one bit while Obummer was doing the exact same thing except he was allowing many of the criminals into our nation illegally, which you progressives applauded....
Question though. If you hate borders and want all of those poor people to flood our nation, why do you lock your doors at your home or your car doors? After all they just want to get a piece of what you have illegally. There is not much difference as both are criminal acts.... I have another question for you leftists. If separating families down at the border is so horrible, why are you all not screaming about all of the family separations that happen every day when criminals are sent to jail and their children are sent to live in the foster care system. Again what is the difference in both of those? After all the illegals are criminals just like the criminals that are sent to jail and prison are... Can you say hypocrite.... Because that is what the left surely is....

Gary Miller

Diane. You and Democrats got you hair on fire because Trump told the AG to enforce the laws passed by Democrats and signed in 1997 by Bill Clinton. If y'all didn't want your law enforced why did you pass it? Why are you opposed to repealing it?

Carlos Ponce

"The one important thing that Trump has accomplished is to show everyone how many laws need to change to close the loopholes..." That part of Diane's post is accurate. What does Trump have in mind? As attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

Lisa Gray

So Diane, explain the law regarding entering our country illegally. There are 9 US consulates in Mexico. If one were truly seeking asylum and wanted to become a legal resident, all they have to do is present themselves and ask for asylum. That is the right way. Do you think they are not intelligent enough to do this? I'll wait for your understanding of the matter.

Jim Forsythe

Do you wish the USA not to follow the laws that are in place,( International and domestic laws).
The USA must follow the "the credible fear and reasonable fear" standard.
Asylum seekers are not quaffed to stay in the USA, by just by stepping over the line. We have laws that must be followed.
Noncitizens who ask for asylum are covered by international and domestic laws. Because some that reach the Boarders consider Mexico as a country that is not safe, they are allowed to ask for asylum at the USA Boarder.
"To ensure that the United States does not violate international and domestic laws by returning individuals to countries where their life or liberty may be at risk, the credible fear and reasonable fear screening processes are available to asylum seekers in expedited removal processes."
Affirmative Asylum Processing With USCIS
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States,
Defensive Asylum Processing with EOIR
A defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the U.S. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Individuals are generally placed into defensive asylum processing in one of two ways:·
They are referred to an Immigration Judge by USCIS after they have been determined to be ineligible for asylum at the end of the affirmative asylum process, or
They are placed in removal proceedings because they:
Were apprehended (or caught) in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry without proper legal documents or in violation of their immigration status,
OR
Were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trying to enter the United States without proper documentation, were placed in the expedited removal process, and were found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an Asylum Officer. .

Carlos Ponce

Jim, International law says you seek asylum in the first country you reach. MEXICO! You don't seek asylum hundreds or thousands of miles from your homeland. You go to the next country. An exception was made for Cuban refugees seeking asylum which Obama lifted in January 2017.

Jim Forsythe

There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country
The 1951 Refugee Convention law does not requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
Host governments are primarily responsible for protecting refugees and the 140 parties to the Convention and/or the Protocol are obliged to carry out its provisions. UNHCR maintains a ‘watching brief’, intervening if necessary to ensure bona fide refugees are granted asylum and are not forcibly returned to countries where their lives may be in danger. The agency seeks ways to help refugees restart their lives, either through local integration, voluntary return to their homeland or, if that is not possible, through resettlement in ‘third’ countries.
The facts about asylum
Asylum seekers are looking for a place of safety
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach.
It is recognized in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country –
The top ten refugee producing countries in 2015 all have poor human rights records or on-going conflict. Asylum seekers are fleeing from these conflicts and abuses, looking for safety.
In 2014, worldwide, 34,000 children applied for asylum having arrived in the country of refuge alone, with no parent or guardian.
Many refugees and asylum seekers hope to return home at some point in the future, if the situation in their country has improved.
The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum. It has saved millions of lives. No country has ever withdrawn from it.

Here are the 20 countries Americans might want to think twice about visiting. Number one the list
1. Mexico
One country that’s always in the news for its violent acts is Mexico. An astonishing 598 deaths were reported during the period from 2009-2016, primarily in areas where crime syndicates are more active. But in recent years, tourist destinations have also been targeted for major crimes


Emile Pope

In other words, he just made that up...

Carlos Ponce

No Emile, the concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees).

Jim Forsythe

Carlos , you may have missed Sec. 208. (b)(2)(A)(vi) of the act.
It makes a difference if the they resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.
"As far as the “country of first asylum” is concerned, Sec. 208. (b)(2)(A)(vi) of the Act construes it an exception to asylum if ‘the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States’. Th is concept is a jurisprudential construction of the US Supreme Court that was later introduced in the legislation by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Act.91 Th e US Supreme Court stated that ‘the “resettlement” concept is […] one of the factors which the Immigration and Naturalization Service must take into account to determine whether a refugee seeks asylum in this country as a consequence of his fl ight to avoid persecution’.92 Th e determinant factor in the application of the principle is therefore not the mere presence, transit or temporary stay in a country prior to the applicant’s arrival in the US; it is not even determined by the lapse of time, but rather by whether that stay in another country constitutes a termination of the original fl ight for protection, as well as the links that the individual has with the country in question: An alien will not be found to be fi rmly resettled elsewhere if it is shown that his physical presence in the United States is a consequence of his flight in search of refuge, and that his physical presence is reasonably proximate to the flight and not one following a fl ight remote in point of time or interrupted by an intervening residence in a third country reasonably constituting a termination of the original flight in search of refuge […]. Th e question of resettlement is not always limited solely to the inquiry of how much time has elapsed between the alien’s fl ight and the asylum application. Other factors germane to the question of whether the alien has firmly resettled include family ties, intent, business or property connections, and other matters."

If this was not the rule, we would not accept asylum seekers at boarder.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts, "Other factors germane to the question of whether the alien has firmly resettled include family ties, intent, business or property connections, and other matters." But those who have entered have questionable family ties to anyone currently living in the USA, their main intent is to make money and send it home not spend it here, coming over they have zero, zip, nada business or property connections with a rare occasional exception.

Jim Forsythe

It says, if they must have resettled, to not be able to ask for asylum in the USA.."An alien will not be found to be firmly resettled elsewhere if it is shown that his physical presence in the United States is a consequence of his flight in search of refuge" if there goal is making it to the USA boarder, going across Mexico dose not disqualify them form asking for asylum in the USA.
Anyone is allowed to ask for asylum.

If this was not the rule, we would not accept asylum seekers at boarder.

Carlos Ponce

You're giving a chicken or the egg type of argument. By the way it's BORDER, not BOARDER.

Jim Forsythe

As I'm not a student of yours, I do not care if you are the spelling police. Auto correct will sometimes change spelling of words. If you notice, it had " " around it, as I did not write it I choose not to correct it..
As far as being a chicken or the egg type of go across argument, it is not. Asylum seekers can cross Mexico, and ask for asylum at the USA boarder.
Anyone is allowed to ask for asylum. If this was not the rule, we would not accept asylum seekers at boarder
Only if they have resettled, they would not be able to ask for asylum in the USA.
"They must have resettled, to not be able to ask for asylum in the USA.. "An alien will not be found to be firmly resettled elsewhere if it is shown that his physical presence in the United States is a consequence of his flight in search of refuge" if there goal is making it to the USA border, going across Mexico does not disqualify them form asking for asylum in the USA".

Carlos Ponce

I was trying to be helpful, Jim, not demeaning.

Jim Forsythe

Asylum seekers, can still ask for asylum at the USA border. They have a right to do so.

Carlos Ponce

You must ask for asylum at a Port of Entry.
https://www.prizant-law.com/asylum/

Jim Forsythe

We have been talking about the border, remember you made a big deal about spelling of border

"A federal court on Monday blocked the systematic detention of migrants who have shown credible evidence that they were fleeing persecution in their home countries.
In a sharply worded ruling, Judge James Boasberg of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found that the government’s own directive calling for asylum applicants to be freed when appropriate while their cases are pending “has been honored more in the breach than the observance.”
At issue is the right of those seeking shelter in the United States to be released while their applications for asylum are making their way through the courts, a process that can take years. While the government is entitled to hold them in detention, a 2009 directive provides that those who have shown what is known as a “credible fear” in an initial interview have a right to be considered for release."

George Croix

What the Admin. should do is honor the order of Judge James Boasberg of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, and release the asylum seekers, and put evryone of them on a plane and send them to DC.
The Judge wants thousands of unvetrted people loose in the country, put them in his neighborhood, where he can personally enjoy........

Diane Turski

Jim just explained it to you, Lisa.

George Croix

ps:
Jerome, if you consider this one weak and pathetic, what the heck was the last one...???

Carlos Ponce

This explains it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k

James Bowles

It is the parents fault...they crossed illegally...snuck in...NOT at a port of entry....so they were detailed and the family had to be separated. Good. Deport them all together. 85% are not with their parents, no matter what left wing nuts say of think.

George Croix

After watching the 'resistance' on TV the last few days, even a 'weak' border policy is several notches above these unhinged characters calls for non-existent border controls.
Just come one, come all....
I'm pretty sure nothing is weaker than something.....on the upside of the sanity spectrum, anyway....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.