So because the government misused its authority in one case it is doing so in every other case? Are you suggesting attempting to illegally cross the border is not dangerous?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Children separated from illegal parents
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
My personal ethics are best described as consequentialist. There needs to be something much more damaging than simply crossing a border to warrant federal detainment and removal of children from parent guardianship. Such as smuggling illegal substances or weapons.
In circumstances where a person is found to have crossed the Mexico-US border, got a job working in a restaurant or something and to have lived in the USA for a month (or a year, or a decade) subsequently, what do you think would be an appropriate reaction by the relevant authorities? If any.
According to the UN the government is misusing its authority right now.
The danger is largely a result of the system itself.
And no, a significant amount of illegal entries is not dangerous. Asylum seeking (which can be done after border crossing legally even with no visa), coming on temporary visas and overstaying (usually picked up on visitations), etc are all quite safe.
The least safe methods are most often utilized by those with the least means. They don't have the money or education to get visas or know their rights at the border.
These are also the people for whom the children would be likely in more danger by staying in their country of origin. And the best way to help them is not breaking up families or sending them back.
Last edited:
I'm a big fan of citizenship programs that work with immigrants (even illegal ones) to get them help with things like getting a proper Visa, budgeting for citizenship form fees, language assistance with those fees as well as taxes, helping them avoid work exploitation and, in general, give them the resources they didn't have in their country to become functioning citizens of ours.
At most I would have the relevant authorities have compliance monitoring and goals in relationship to such programs.
Could this though cause the thinking that if I as an illegal have my child in the US, he becomes a US citizen and thus encourage more women to want to do this?
To me this is like asking if legal gay marriage will encourage same-sex friends to get married to exploit the rights and privilege of marriage. Even if it did...so?
Desperation.
Crossing the border illegally is potentially very dangerous. I think a consequence of a parent that would knowingly expose a child to such danger should be temporary losing custody of those children until the case is adjudicated.
What does your reply mean? Are you saying I am desperate? Or are you saying the desperation of the parents justifies them endangering their children? Your post is ambiguous.
I'm sure those kids will appreciate your entirely fake care.
That makes sense if you think crossing the border illegally is as dangerous as same-sex marriage. But they aren’t. It is that crossing the border illegally is so dangerous and knowingly exposing children to that danger which makes it so wrong.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Our nation was founded by mass immigration to a place filled with diverse tribes who fought with each other over resources and land much like the Europeans did. The story of the founding of the United States is probably the best argument against mass immigration. We are supposed to learn from history, not repeat it.
Except it's not, as I already explained to you. Most border crossings by illegal residents is entirely safe. And those which aren't would be better aided by not having a victim blaming system which makes it more dangerous than by punishing people making that decision.
I’m sure they would much prefer it over fake concern over them that exposes them to grave danger, injury or death.
Are you really supporting exposing children to such danger in them name of “caring” for them? That’s not compassion.
The slur is "anchor baby".
And yeah, sure, maybe. People do that already. I don't see an issue, especially.
You are conflating migration and immigration. The U.S. was populated through a combination of migration and immigration.
Separate subjects in my book. Abuse of gay marriage laws is a subject for another thread maybe.
I can see mothers and babies heading for precarious situations as just one issue. And this is not the type and purpose of the immigration process that is sanctioned by any immigration system.
They wouldn't be in danger if people with fake care didn't make the only routes available to them dangerous. You also ignore where they are coming from and put forth the entirely unwarranted and unevidenced claim that they would be safer separated from their parents.
And then you will have the outcry of the separation as the next issue. Or parents and child automatically become legal as the next step??
I can see mothers and babies heading for precarious situations as just one issue. And this is not the type and purpose of the immigration process that is sanctioned by any immigration system.