DACA, immigration reform whatever

[Chooky 13334]

 

[Brisketexan 106296]

58 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

I remember a time when the Obama policies that led to our immigration system being overwhelmed could be discussed (somewhat) rationally:

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/146694-Obama-administration-has-gone-from-not-enforcing-immigration-law-to-actively-helping

 

Brisket then: I don't think that interdicted illegal aliens should be released and expected to show up at their deportation hearing. They should have a prompt deportation hearing, and if deportation is merited, be deported.
 

 

Yep.  I was wrong - well, at least in part I was.  In that context, we were discussing the previously typical migrant (single male), not whole families. And FURTHER, you skip a pretty important step here: folks seeking asylum are NOT illegal entrants....except when the admin refuses them the ordinary process (presentation of claim and entry at a port of entry), and forces them to enter via other means.  That's not what we were discussing back then.

I believe that asylum seekers should be treated as they historically have been: allow them to present their claims at a port of entry, adjudicate their claims, and treat them accordingly.  A family shows up at a US port of entry seeking asylum, they should be kept together, have their claim fairly adjudicated, and treated accordingly.  And again, historically, in the interim, they are not kept in detention.

You are conflating issues and situations.  But it's okay.  It's what this admin and its supporters do.

[Ragnarok 103]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  I was wrong - well, at least in part I was.  In that context, we were discussing the previously typical migrant (single male), not whole families. And FURTHER, you skip a pretty important step here: folks seeking asylum are NOT illegal entrants....except when the admin refuses them the ordinary process (presentation of claim and entry at a port of entry), and forces them to enter via other means.  That's not what we were discussing back then.

I believe that asylum seekers should be treated as they historically have been: allow them to present their claims at a port of entry, adjudicate their claims, and treat them accordingly.  A family shows up at a US port of entry seeking asylum, they should be kept together, have their claim fairly adjudicated, and treated accordingly.  And again, historically, in the interim, they are not kept in detention.

You are conflating issues and situations.  But it's okay.  It's what this admin and its supporters do.

Well, I’m glad to see you admit that the previous typical illegal immigrant was a single male, not whole families. What changed was Obama’s policies. What was actually under discussion in that thread was Obama flying in families to El Paso who were caught coming in illegally in South Texas, helping them arrange transportation to their final U.S. destination, and telling them to show up for their court date, which of course most didn’t.  If you think policies like that  don't encourage illegal immigration, you just have no intellectual honesty.  The amnesty system is overwhelmed and unworkable because too many folks are claiming it in response to the policies Obama instituted.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Ragnarok

[David Dennison 19316]

1 minute ago, Ragnarok said:

Well, I’m glad to see you admit that the previous typical illegal immigrant was a single male, not whole families. What changed was Obama’s policies. What was actually under discussion in that thread was Obama flying in families to El Paso who were caught coming in illegally in South Texas, helping them arrange transportation to their final U.S. destination, and telling them to show up for their court date, which of course most didn’t.  If you don’t think policies like that encouraged illegal immigration, you just have no intellectual honesty.  The amnesty system in overwhelmed and unworkable because too many folks are claiming it in response to the policies Obama instituted.

 

Prove it. Show some numbers.

[Tuco 5089]

Went to the rally this weekend, and worked a table for voter registration.  Couldn't hear the speakers too well, and what I heard wasn't great, but my point of inspiration occurred when I went to buy some water at the little mercado near the rally.  I had a "Democrats support Dreamers" t-shirt on.  They kid at the register asked what the Dreamers were.  I explained that it generally referred to people protected by DACA, the kids who came to the country when they were younger than 16.  He kind of perked up and asked if it would apply to him, since he came when he was 11.  I got to explain to him that the program was no longer taking applicants. 

[RandomIdoit 733]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Prove it. Show some numbers.

It was 39% in 2016. That's not "most" but its still a huge number of people (52000+ in 2016).

[David Dennison 19316]

16 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

It was 39% in 2016. That's not "most" but its still a huge number of people (52000+ in 2016).

Conversely, the number of immigrants who do show up is also a huge number - sizably larger, in fact, than the number of immigrants who do not.

It's also worth noting that those who do not show up are deported in absentia, so the second they get caught by law enforcement for anything they are deported. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by David Dennison

[Celery Man 21064]

2 hours ago, Ragnarok said:

Well, I assume the part you disagree with is that Obama created this problem. The system is not static. People react to the policies that we put in place. The factors that created this wave of illegal immigrants bringing children with them is in response to policies Obama implemented.   The problem with DACA is the loopholes that it creates. Anybody can get across with a child now, and then claim the child has been in the US all along. The reality is that this works. Combine that with Obama’s catch and release policy, and you have provided strong incentives for illegals to come in with children. Reversing those incentives is difficult. I’d say Obama’s plan  is working well.  If the left gets there way, those policies will continue, and we will have lost control of the border. It’s pretty simple, either we have the rule of law or we don’t.  You guys are all in on chaos.  

 

you said precisely three things in your second sentence, and I pointed out the 1 specific thing that is true and said that the other two are false.  So rather than assume you could use your powers of deduction to identify the two things I disagree with.

[Tuco 5089]

18 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

It was 39% in 2016. That's not "most" but its still a huge number of people (52000+ in 2016).

Source?

[David Dennison 19316]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Source?

It fluctuates by year, but that appears to be correct for 2016. Still not most. Not even close.

[RandomIdoit 733]

5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Source?

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download#page=49

It's probably worse now with Trump in office. 

[Ragnarok 103]

13 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

you said precisely three things in your second sentence, and I pointed out the 1 specific thing that is true and said that the other two are false.  So rather than assume you could use your powers of deduction to identify the two things I disagree with.

Well, my second sentence was " It is shaping up to be THE issue in the 2018 elections.  If you disagree with something else, by all means, let me know.

[Tuco 5089]

 

28 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download#page=49

It's probably worse now with Trump in office. 

 

53 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

It was 39% in 2016. That's not "most" but its still a huge number of people (52000+ in 2016).

Your source that 52k people in 2016 didn't show up for their hearings indicates that the number of "in absentia" decisions was 34k. 

 

[Celery Man 21064]

Ah you’re right, it was the fourth sentence that I referred to directly

[RandomIdoit 733]

18 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

 

Your source that 52k people in 2016 didn't show up for their hearings indicates that the number of "in absentia" decisions was 34k. 

 

You're right. I calculated the number that were present.

[Ragnarok 103]

Ok, the 4th sentence was " Trump didn't create this problem, and the American people do not want open borders, which is the solution that the left is doubling down on."

I really thought the only controversial part of what I said was about Obama's policies.  As for that sentence, well, I don't see what's controversial about it. Trump didn't create the illegal immigration problem.  The left is advocating for a system that will overwhelm any attempt to control it.  There are millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people that would like to immigrate into the U.S.  You can control the border, or you can get chaos. There's really no in-between. As soon as it is perceived that you aren't controlling the border, you attract many more illegal immigrants. That's pretty much what has happened, and now we are trying to deal with it. It is difficult.

 

[ChickenSandwich 9898]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Conversely, the number of immigrants who do show up is also a huge number - sizably larger, in fact, than the number of immigrants who do not.

It's also worth noting that those who do not show up are deported in absentia, so the second they get caught by law enforcement for anything they are deported. 

Unless arrested in a Sanctuary city that doesn’t cooperate with ICE

[Celery Man 21064]

Trump created the problem of separating families that arrive together at the border, the ideological middle and middle left is not advocating for open borders.  And there is such a thing as an in between, which is what several have been discussing in depth recently in this thread (if I'm keeping threads straight).

[Ragnarok 103]

I'm not saying there aren't reasonable people discussing real solutions.  It's just that they have zero influence in the democrat party right now.  All over the country we see people protesting and carrying signs saying. Abolish ICE. No separation and no detention.  That's what democrats have chosen to run on in 2018.  Perhaps a middle ground emerges, but I don't think so. The political implications of these positions what what my original post was about.

[Tuco 5089]

4 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

I'm not saying there aren't reasonable people discussing real solutions.  It's just that they have zero influence in the democrat party right now.  All over the country we see people protesting and carrying signs saying. Abolish ICE. No separation and no detention.  That's what democrats have chosen to run on in 2018.  Perhaps a middle ground emerges, but I don't think so. The political implications of these positions what what my original post was about.

You're equating "abolish ICE" with "no separation and no detention"?  Do you equate either with "open borders"?

Tell me, who is the highest profile Democrat who has advocated for abolishing ICE? 

[InkaUtexas 26716]

11 minutes ago, Tuco said:

You're equating "abolish ICE" with "no separation and no detention"?  Do you equate either with "open borders"?

Tell me, who is the highest profile Democrat who has advocated for abolishing ICE? 

Senator Warren to name one prominent member of Congress. 

2020 Insight: Dem prospects call for abolishing ICE; Harris 'not ruling it out'; Warren sounds like a candidate

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/politics/2020-insight-democrats-abolish-ice/index.html

And this new face of the party. 

 

We do need to reform our system.

A concern I see is this. Replace it with what? A new acronym? What Agency runs it? HHS? HUD? 

Edited July 2, 2018 by InkaUtexas

[David Dennison 19316]

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has also called for the abolition of ICE.

 

[Js1 86414]

Maybe put it under the principal law enforcement agency of the US?

[Ragnarok 103]

Tuco, high profile democrats are mostly keeping their mouths shut on that one, because even guys like Bernie Sanders are getting savaged by the left for acknowledging abolishing ICE may not be a good idea. On the other hand, high profile democrats are encouraging the protests that are saying these things. Who in the democrat party is coming out in support of effective border control policies?   I am sure the Republicans will portray  democrats as being in favor of open borders.  If democrats  aren't, they aren't doing much of a job making their case.  Maybe I'm wrong. But that's how I see the midterms shaping up.

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Senator Warren to name one prominent member of Congress. 

2020 Insight: Dem prospects call for abolishing ICE; Harris 'not ruling it out'; Warren sounds like a candidate

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/politics/2020-insight-democrats-abolish-ice/index.html

 

We do need to reform our system.

A concern I see is this. Replace it with what? A new acronym? What Agency runs it? HHS? HUD? 

And she's not calling for getting rid of border enforcement, but for replacing ICE with something that "reflects the morality of our country."  Gillenbrand also called for replacing ICE.  

[David Dennison 19316]

Just now, Ragnarok said:

Tuco, high profile democrats are mostly keeping their mouths shut on that one, because even guys like Bernie Sanders are getting savaged by the left for acknowledging abolishing ICE may not be a good idea. On the other hand, high profile democrats are encouraging the protests that are saying these things. Who in the democrat party is coming out in support of effective border control policies?   I am sure the Republicans will portray  democrats as being in favor of open borders.  If democrats  aren't, they aren't doing much of a job making their case.  Maybe I'm wrong. But that's how I see the midterms shaping up.

All Democrats favor effective border control policies. 

Abolishing ICE would be a great idea.

[InkaUtexas 26716]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Maybe put it under the principal law enforcement agency of the US?

Like it was before being inserted into DHS? Makes sense, but still need to reform it. 

[Tuco 5089]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

We do need to reform our system.

A concern I see is this. Replace it with what? A new acronym? What Agency runs it? HHS? HUD? 

Exactly this.  I don't really care about the initials on the uniform.  There will still be some sort of immigration control.  The important things are: its mission, its leadership, its regs, its oversight, etc..

I had not seen that Warren called for it, although I think her quote has some room to wiggle. 

 

 

 

 

[InkaUtexas 26716]

Just now, Tuco said:

Exactly this.  I don't really care about the initials on the uniform.  There will still be some sort of immigration control.  The important things are: its mission, its leadership, its regs, its oversight, etc..

I had not seen that Warren called for it, although I think her quote has some room to wiggle. 

 

Of course it does. She is a politician, will probably run for President, and she will still need Middle America voters, not just progressives. 

[Js1 86414]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Exactly this.  I don't really care about the initials on the uniform.  There will still be some sort of immigration control.  The important things are: its mission, its leadership, its regs, its oversight, etc..

I had not seen that Warren called for it, although I think her quote has some room to wiggle. 

 

 

 

 

Quite a few of them have put some language of "start over from scratch" and not "abolish it and never have anything replace it ever again."

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Senator Warren to name one prominent member of Congress. 

2020 Insight: Dem prospects call for abolishing ICE; Harris 'not ruling it out'; Warren sounds like a candidate

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/politics/2020-insight-democrats-abolish-ice/index.html

 

We do need to reform our system.

A concern I see is this. Replace it with what? A new acronym? What Agency runs it? HHS? HUD? 

 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has also called for the abolition of ICE.

 

But Gillibrand and Warren don't support 0 enforcement of immigration laws.  I think that is where the disconnect comes with those who call to "abolish ICE."  Its a nice catch phrase, I guess, but its also easy to attack for the ragnaroks of the world.  The majority who want to "abolish ICE" really want to go back to where the INS managed that mission directly under the DOJ.  The INS certainly had its own problems with gestapo-ism, but overall it had better legal oversight than ICE.  Being in the DHS gives ICE a lot of cover on doing things in the name of "national security" without first determining whether there is actually a security threat or what legal rights anybody has. 

[InkaUtexas 26716]

4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

And she's not calling for getting rid of border enforcement, but for replacing ICE with something that "reflects the morality of our country."  Gillenbrand also called for replacing ICE.  

The original post was this. Tell me, who is the highest profile Democrat who has advocated for abolishing ICE? 

 

I think Warren has the highest profile of Dems right now calling for it. 

[F250 29122]

Not to go "both sides" on the issue but this ball started rolling under Bill Clinton with IIRAIRA and the  Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Dubya added a lot of strength to the beast with DHS and ICE then Obama continued to feed the beast until we ended up with the ICE monster which is now Trump's pet.

The situation we are in now is the result of a bipartisan effort to address real and imagined problems. I do believe that Clinton, Bush, Obama and Congress never intended to use all of these laws for nefarious purposes. However, they did assemble what we have today.

They essentially built a gun, loaded it,  then left it on a table for a toddler to play with it. We all know who the toddler is in this analogy.

Yes, both sides created this problem and their mistake was assuming that an American President wouldn't act like an immoral asshole.

The entire program needs to be reformed and done in a way where future leaders cannot exploit it.

[InkaUtexas 26716]

This article discusses the program and sums up the risks with abolishing vs. reforming. This is time for policy to be made with real moral solutions which also provide a solid path for immigration. 

"You abolish Ice now, you still have the same president with the same failed policies," Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois said. "Whatever you replace it with is still going to reflect what the president wants to do."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44687935

[Chooky 13334]

If these toddlers prove to be even halfway decent lawyers then there's no reason we can't put them to work in meat processing plants and sawmills. All that cheap labor is going to waste while they're sitting idle in their diapers. When they're not doing doc review, we could have teams of infants framing houses or doing something productive. 

,

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

This article discusses the program and sums up the risks with abolishing vs. reforming. This is time for policy to be made with real moral solutions which also provide a solid path for immigration. 

"You abolish Ice now, you still have the same president with the same failed policies," Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois said. "Whatever you replace it with is still going to reflect what the president wants to do."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44687935

That really depends though.  If its under the DOJ, even Sessions' or another Trump appointee's DOJ, you have a much more careful agency.  The DOJ puts liberty before security (usually).  DHS and DOD put security before liberty.  This is why the FBI, and even the ATF and DEA, don't trample as badly on people's rights as ICE and other DHS agencies do.  Any federal law enforcement organization that makes arrests on US soil should fall under the DOJ.  Any agency that works outside the US or at the US' direct border should be under DOD or DHS.  This includes CBP, but not ICE.  

[InkaUtexas 26716]

I can agree with this. And give them a very strong mandate to make sure there are no violations. 

So back to the kids and families. What do we do about it NOW? Seems like everyone involved has fucked up in the past few years, from Washington through all the agencies. 

[Pancho 45943]

 

[Spankytoes 1748]

14 hours ago, Js1 said:

Maybe put it under the principal law enforcement agency of the US?

We already have a thread on how blacks are targeted and mistreated. You sure that you want that?

Edited July 3, 2018 by Spankytoes

[retread 2951]

More on Pancho's tweet above. Trump goons Be Besting.

Quote

Typically, asylum-seekers must pass a "credible fear" interview to convince authorities that they face a threat of persecution at home. If they pass, they are usually eligible for release pending a hearing, unless they are considered a flight risk or a danger to the public. At least, that is how it worked during the Obama administration.

But according to the ACLU lawsuit, everything changed under the Trump administration. Asylum-seekers in five ICE field offices in Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark and Philadelphia are being detained with no hope of being released.

"We had a clear record, as the court noted, showing that in these five ICE field offices there really was a very clear pattern in what previously resulted in release of asylum seekers at a rate of ninety percent based on individualized consideration really dwindled down to near zero," Wang said.

As a result, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to conduct case-by-case reviews of more than a thousand other asylum-seekers who have been denied release by those five ICE field offices.

"To be clear, in finding that injunctive relief is warranted in this case, this Court is simply ordering that Defendants do what they already admit is required– follow the ICE Directive when adjudicating asylum-seekers' detention. The Directive provides a framework of minimum protections for those claiming refugee status, and, as Defendants acknowledge, it is binding on the Government. To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores – is no great judicial leap," Judge Boasberg concluded.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/02/625504723/federal-judge-orders-administration-to-end-arbitrary-detention-of-asylum-seekers

Edited July 3, 2018 by retread

[Tuco 5089]

One of the ACLU tweets from that original thread:

"Our client, Ansly, an ethics teacher from Haiti, fled violent, political persecution.  He has been granted asylum by a judge TWICE, but the government has appealed each time.  @ICEgov has not let him outside for more than a year."

His story:

Spoiler

In another life, I was a teacher. I stood in front of young people, delivering lessons on ethics and morality, as well as math and physics. Now, I am a prisoner. For the past 16 months, I have been locked inside the Geauga County Safety Center in Chardon, Ohio.

“Safety Center” is a strange name for a jail with no outdoor space, where immigrant detainees are kept in windowless rooms. I have not felt fresh air in my lungs or the sun on my face for more than a year. I have not felt safe for years.

My troubles began on Sept. 15, 2014. I was leading a youth seminar in my hometown of Grand-Riviere-du-Nord, Haiti. I was mid-discussion on the problem of corruption in Haitian politics when I named a local government official — Benjamin Ocenjac — as an example of someone who works with gangs to terrorize the population.

That very day, I was attacked by members of “La Meezorequin,” the Shark Bones Army, a well-armed gang that supports Mr. Ocenjac. Men dragged me off my motorcycle and savagely beat me — breaking several bones and leaving me with scars which I bear to this day. They set my motorcycle on fire and threatened to kill me.

Fearing for my life, I fled Haiti 10 days later, leaving behind my wife, two young children, parents, and siblings. I was in Brazil for 18 months, living first at a refugee camp, and later in a shared, rented room. I found work in construction but faced discrimination. I was told I was an animal, that people like me were flooding the country to steal jobs. There was no life for me there, but I was afraid to go back to Haiti.

In October 2016, I arrived at the California border to seek asylum. I was interviewed by an officer who found that I had a credible fear of persecution. In April 2017, an immigration judge granted my asylum application, giving me the opportunity to start a new life in the United States. However, the government appealed the decision and the Board of Immigration Appeals called for more proceedings to determine if my time in Brazil had rendered me ineligible for asylum, as the government claimed. I had a second hearing and, in January 2018, the judge once again granted my asylum. She found that I was eligible for asylum in the U.S. and that I would continue to face threats from La Meezorequin, who had since been harassing my wife, should I return to Haiti.

The government appealed again, sending my case into further proceedings.

All the while, I have been imprisoned. Some would call it detention, a euphemism. But I am a human being trapped behind metal bars and walls, with no access to the outdoors, the internet, or email. For the past 11 months, there have been no other French speakers at Geauga whom I can talk to. I spend my days in near total isolation, finding comfort only when I’m reading my Bible.

My teacher’s mind struggles to find a lesson in my experience, but I can’t make sense of this. The United States has allowed people fleeing persecution to apply for asylum for decades, both as part of its laws and culture. When I feared for my life and arrived at the border, it felt like the U.S. had extended an open hand to me. Yet in accepting it, I have been condemned to indefinite imprisonment, even though I have committed no crime.

I know that I am not the only one in this situation, and this isn’t the way that it should be in the United States. Growing up, I always heard talk about America and its promise. In previous years, those who sought asylum were released on humanitarian parole while their cases were decided, but now the government has simply stopped letting people out.

At Geauga, I have seen other asylum-seekers give up and return to countries where they fled danger because the price of seeking safety — imprisonment for months or years on end — was just too high. I am still fighting. The ACLU and partners filed a class action lawsuit on my behalf as well as for more than a thousand other asylum seekers who are currently locked up across the United States. We are suing the Department of Homeland Security for depriving us of due process.

In telling my story and fighting for basic rights, I’m hoping that America will prove to be better than this.

 

[Pancho 45943]

Wait, what?

 

[F250 29122]

I saw the ACLU commercial the other night. The website at the at the end has some good information on how to help. https://www.aclu.org/families

 

[Tuco 5089]

^^Pancho

 

the form here

1. It apparently should just apply to people represented in a specific class action law suit.  (Ms. L vs ICE). Per a June 6th update, the case is ongoing.

2. The immigrants are being read their choices by ICE agents.  The form that they are to sign is in English.  They apparently do not have representation during this. 

Fuck these fucking assholes.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Tuco

[F250 29122]

11 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

Wait, what?

 

Trump isn't going to stop until Congress makes him stop. Congress will not make a move until the people force their hand. This fight is going to take a lot of effort.

[InkaUtexas 26716]

As if these are the only two options. Who the fuck thinks this crap up? And I don't think it is Trump ruling by decree. This is the work of Minions trying to get in front of him with their fucked up ideas and him not thinking them through, saying yep, sounds great.

It would be so easy for us to establish family centers here and in Central America. Safe, food, etc. 

[Goredho 17597]

An anecdotal experience that I always think about when pondering immigration.

I was putting in a big-ass flagstone patio in my back yard in Austin and hired some day laborers through an immigrant advocacy center that a friend of my wife's worked at.  I have no idea if they were legal or illegal.  I would guess the latter.  Anyway, one of the guys spoke fairly decent english, so he became the defacto foreman.  Over lunch, I talked with him a bit and we got on the topic of his life in Mexico.  Now, he could have been bullshitting me, but I believe what he told me based on being with him in person, seeing how intelligent he was, etc...

He was from Monterrey.  He had a wife and 3 kids.  He was college educated, having attended the Universidad de Monterrey.  He had been a professional in Mexico -- an accountant with his own office, and had a good number of clients.  But, he closed it down and now just does accounting work on the side 3-4 months a year in Monterrey.  The rest of the year, he comes to the U.S. and works as a day laborer for $10 an hour.  He does this because he makes more money putting in flagstone porches at $10 an hour here than he does in Mexico as a college-educated accountant.  Most of it gets sent home to his wife and kids.

And that is not nearly the worst immigrant story out there.  Now, I wonder how you stop someone that is living that from coming to the U.S?  From seeking a better life for their family?  Will a wall deter them anymore than a river does?  If I was in there shoes, and I saw my kids wanting, would I let a wall deter me?  I also wonder what happens to good people in Mexico if what little opportunities they have evaporate?  What happens if we pull out of NAFTA and the Maquilladoras shut down?  What do those factory and textile workers do then?  Do they sit back passively behind the wall accepting their lessened lot in life?  Do they climb it?  Do they join the cartels?

Illegal immigration is a complex problem with no simple fixes.

[Chad Fuck 18034]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/03/us/indianapolis-church-holy-family-ice-trnd/index.html

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/03/us/indianapolis-church-holy-family-ice-trnd/index.html

That priest probably is a Sandusky.  

[Chad Fuck 18034]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

That priest probably is a Sandusky.  

Shoot the messenger, eh?

I'm sure priests and any other clergy who disagree with Trump will be in the firing line eventually.