K, so let's deport them together. We can agree that that it isn't pragamtic to allow everyone in while understanding that these families have desires that aren't nefarious and deserving of harsh punishment but a mere deportation with their family intact. Also it's fiscally pragamtic to not criminally prosecute every family illegally crossing.
No it was " civil deportation proceedings, not requiring separation". As in they were in detention centers together and not criminally prosecuted and eventually deported in a much quicker manner than going through a long ass criminal process. Win win. It merges empathy with fisical responsibility. I
I'm not sure you can claim that without data especially if you consider the reduced secondary criminal acts from coyotes and drug mules. Houston is now sex traffic central thanks to unregulated borders, interstates I10 and I45 and major sporting events. Underage prostitutes, rapes as payment for border crossing, I'm not sure your position is really the moral high ground. I'd like to try deterrents. Louis Theroux did a recent special on Trafficking Sex, it was completely based in Houston
I'm referring to every family that is caught. I mean they call it a "zero tolerance" policy for a reason. They want to criminally prosecute every family thus requiring separation. I don't think the familes that are seeking asylum are part of that "prostitution" ring you are reffering to. Your logic doesn't make any sense. So you are saying these families crossed the border through having someone in that family raped thus they were helped crossing the border and then you want to criminally prosecute the victim of the rape? Moral high ground? So mommy gets raped by proffesional border crossers, criminally prosecuted and then have their child taken away? I don't think a serial murderer suffers as much with their punishment.
How would criminally prosecuting every parent ease the burdern on our detention centers? In fact the Justice department accounted for the increase in detentions with the "zero tolerance" policy by creating more make shift ones out of abandoned Walmarts. Criminal prosecution takes SIGNFICANTLY longer. Thus the flow rate is much slower thus it creates a significantly larger back log .
You are implying that length of a jail sentence is somehow proportional to the harm inflicted by the violation. In another post, you suggested that the harm inflicted by entering into the country illegally is comparable to reckless driving or intoxicating manslaugnter. Your definition of “harm” is clearly different than mine. If there are many cases of kids being forcibly separated from their parents and placed under government “care” for something as harmless as a mar1juana violation, there should be outrage over that.
Deterrence shuts down the influx. That shuts down coyotes. Deterring people from an action that causes them harm is typically correct. 80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. You think deportation is enough deterrence. My thinking is that has been tried for years and now harsher deterrence is happening.
What does that mean without any context? Here is a qusstion. What would be considered as a "successful" policy for you? Zero attempted illegal border crossings? I ask because your statement of "it's been tried for many years" makes it sound like illegal border crossings haven't hit a 46 year low by the end of 2017 which means something was trending in the right direction in terms of policy over the past few decades. Maybe your goal is zero crossings. But I find that to not be a realistic goal.
I'd like Houston to no longer be an internationally known hub of sex trafficking. I'd like the massive influx of fentanyl by "harmless children" stopped. Just Trump getting elected was a deterrent until word got out that nothing had changed then numbers went back up. So something far below FY2017 in apprehensions would be a success.
There's an opiod epidemic making bleeding hearts out of Midwesterners. With all the laws being broken, they now have a change of heart on drug sentencing and want the Rush Limbaugh treatment for leniency. But those crack babies...****'em. "Zero tolerance" for misdemeanors is just the darndest thing.
I take it from your answer above, you either don't know what happened when detention centers were filled OR they did catch and release. As far as how it eases the burden....the theory is a tougher deportation policy with no leaks to exploit will diminish the numbers who even care to try.
I'm suggesting that the length of a jail sentence associated with a crime is related to how seriously the state considers the offense. The state considers a first offense of illegal entry to be somewhere between reckless driving and intoxicated manslaughter in seriousness....or roughly equivalent to minor mar1juana possession in Texas because that's what the sentence associated with those crimes implies. There absolutely are, but you won't hear about it because the DNC hasn't told people that the process of separating criminals from their families during their detention is "cruel". In fact, they go even further, that family would have to deal with CPS even after they got out and could have their parental rights terminated altogether.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you are attributing the 37 year low to Trump rhetoric? No, the previous policy of civil detention and deportation resulted in similar numbers. Look at the graph. You can see the number reached similar levels under the Obama years. There wasn't some drastic spike down under the first year of Trump . https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568546381/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-hit-46-year-low
Actor George Takei submitted this article to FP, pointing out the absurdity of the forced child separation policy During WW2, US and Japan were at war; Japanese Americans were considered threats to national security and, thus, sent to internment camps. At age 5, along w my family, i was sent to live in a horse stall at a race track; but I was not taken from my parents http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/19...ever-utter-family-separation-children-border/
You mean how we reached a near 37 year low under the Obama policy? Replace "theory" with "conjecture" and why need conjecture when we have empirical data?
Is it really? So a "zero tolerance" policy for DUI would seem odd to you? I mean, it's just a misdemeanor after all, we should let people slide. Just take them home when you catch them out driving drunk, that's all the deterrent you need. Why go through the trouble of prosecuting all of them and I imagine that some people will be separated from their children as a result of the arrest and I hear that's CRUEL and will cause permanent harm to the children.
Ya, we chose which misdemeanors require "zero tolerance" out of factors such as empathy. Judges with far more education and experience than you use it. ****, even cops use it many times. Zero tolerance for misdemeanors that can directlly harm another human makes sense . Zero tolerance for first time offenders for tresspassing from a shithole isn't one of those that make sense.
2017 was lowest even by your graph which anything before 2010 when comparing policy is irrelevant. Your graph doesn't have 2018 to date. which have bounced right back. Trump was a deterrent, no change in policy, no additional border security, plus booming economy caused more influx. Need more deterrent.
