In addition to the two choices of either being separated from their children or being indefinately detained with them, how about a third choice - go with your child back across the border.
26
It's interesting, the collective silence of the 15 Dem presidential candidates. You'd think they'd want to weigh in as one's who might have to deal with the consequences of Trump's policy decisions.
7
Make it clear to the people who would illegally sneak into the country that we will no longer stand for that. If they want to come here to reside they can go to their local US embassies or consulates to apply for admission.
Learn our language and history. Drop the native costumes. Convince us that you want to be one of us and they'll have a good chance of a hieving their goal. Don't just show up!
These people are sneaking into the country from Mexico after sneaking into Mexico and traversing that entire country. We need to pressure Mexico to put a stop to this.
24
“..The US as a refuge for people fleeing poverty, violence, and persecution.”
Here’s the issue. Is asylum intended to include people fleeing poverty?
26
I have no problem with reviewing the asylum rules and would like to think a well-functioning government would review them periodically as a matter of course and work with the UN to expand changes to the global system. What I fear is that the Trumpists will use the process to discriminate among seekers for political reasons and implement policies that have no connection to the case for asylum itself (separating families to discourage legitimate asylum seekers. Yes, the Democrats have got to get on board with reviewing the asylum process if they want to beat Trump and move away from the open boarder moniker.
8
@Mister Ed
I agree. Common sense tells me that our laws, rules and system for immigration were not made to handle a 100,000 folks per month coming across the border.
Trump may have made things worse but he stands to win big on this issue if the Democratic Party does not become part of the solution.
24
@Frank Exactly right. The current asylum laws date from the 1950s, right after WWII, when the world (and mostly Europe) was trying to cope with the millions of people who were REALLY displaced--not people running away from a failed state, "criminal gangs" and lack of jobs. Europe realized only too late how hopelessly out of date these laws are when millions of people walked into the continent before, during and after 2015. These people realized they could work the asylum scam, after throwing away their ID (if you can't positively identify me, you can't deport me) and get a two-three year paid vacation at European taxpayer expense until they found some illegal work, got a good drug route going, or found someone to have pity on them some other way. Oh yeah, if you were a 26-year-old Afghan man, you automatically lied and said you were born in 2000--making you 15 years old and eligible for automatic acceptance as a child. That is the way this scam has been working in Europe--for years. And benefits shopping (get asylum in one country, but go to Germany and lie to make another application because the benefits are better) is widely practiced. And everyone knows it in Europe--and the liberal, lying press is as craven and cowardly as in the US. This swindle has been worked before, US. When illegal migrants, welfare grifters and smuggling gangs decide what your migration policy is, you are in trouble. Wise up!
18
The UN has got to be involved! and Miller and Trump need to be declared war criminals.
7
@robert west UN? The UN is a toothless organization where diplomats come to NYC to eat at nice restaurants on taxpayers' dimes and talk about issues, get nothing done. It's a dog and pony show.
9
@robert west You are naïve. The UN wrote the laws that make the current swindle possible. See the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees from 1967. It is a vague, useless document that has allowed thousands of job-seekers and phony asylum seekers to get their feet over the border of the country they plan to swindle. Once inside the country, these same laws make it very difficult to get rid of these people--even if they are proven NOT to have any grounds for asylum. Drop the "war criminals" garbage, please. It sound idiotic.
13
Bravo! This administration has stumbled several times, but this is a common sense approach to controlling legal immigration. No, the US is not “full”, but our resources are also not limitless.
19
Good policy and good politics.
If Democrats don't get on board with some stricter asylum-illegal immigration policies they will hand Trump a second term
30
@Luciano
This is just one of several conflicts democrats now face because of its extreme left wing. Unlike more centrist democrats, the left wing is temperamental and will stay home if it's not indulged. The question is how extreme can the party go to ensure left wing turnout without losing more centrist voters. On immigration, losing voters doesn't appear to be of great concern to democrats.
11
Excellent move. Determine whether asylum is warranted and then allow entry to the US. Asylum should mean more than a simple declaration followed by an automatic ticket of entry.
15
Long overdue
80 percent of asylum claims on the southern border are denied.
That means hundreds of thousands of people every year are exploiting our outdated asylum system, which is strained beyond belief and costs US taxpayers millions of dollars per year to maintain
Enough is enough
26
I see nothing wrong with more strict asylumn laws when the system has been abused and taken advantage of by millions of economic migrants whose claims have no merit. Asylumn was never intended to cover the millions of people living in poverty who now are being coached on what to say in order to trigger protection.
37
Consciously or not, it seems to me that Trump is trying to set precedent for a habitual form authoritarian rule by way of a populist theme (in this case immigration). His standard approach of pushing for agency policy and methods that go up against and even transgress the law, rather than pushing congress to consider plausibly urgent and comprehensive immigration reforms (including a revision of how we should define legitimate asylum) suggets that he would PREFER to set a precedent for ignoring the legislative branch rather than get it on his side. It's all just a matter of precedent, just turning the heat up a bit on us frogs, and will make other, more heinous transgressions and authoritarian manoeuvers all the easier. It's a well beaten path to authoritarian rule, his recent language about the country being full and literally instructing the border guards not to pay attention to the law should be sending shivers down the backs of all Americans. Unfortunately, just as in 1930's Italy or Germany, you have a frightening portion of the country cheering on their leader.
24
@Tom this kind of hyperbole is not helpful. Where to start? Comparing Trump to Hitler or Mussolini is not only factually ridiculous, but also deeply offensive, because it makes light of the many millions of murders of the Fascists and Nazis (already by the time they took power they had murdered thousands). I suggest you read up a bit on history and gain a better understanding what those years under fascism were really like. The fact that you are allowed to publish this opinion is proof that freedom of speech and democracy are alive and well.
Restricting immigration may be populist, it may also be the wrong policy (I believe immigration will be an essential ingredient for future economic growth in the United States), but it is, and has always been, a valid political stance. Nobody has a 'right' to settle in another country. The law, as it is currently in place, does not allow for this much immigration, or provide a path to these hundreds of thousands of people who are currently coming to the border to live in the United States. (This is why we have the term "illegal immigration")
As far as the legal situation, you have that backwards, I'm afraid. There are actually sanctuary cities in the US where the local authorities are purposefully shielding people in the country illegally -- literally instructing their civil servants not to pay attention to the law, which is what you accused the administration of.
5
The last time the U.S. immigration law underwent reform was in 1964 -- more than 50 years ago. Times and circumstances have changed. Yeah, it's time to re-tool this country's immigration laws to better reflect the needs of our times. Those who are coming in record-breaking numbers, with kids in tow, are economic migrants. They should not be taking advantage of the asylum laws. The Pew Foundation says that $46 billion was sent back to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador in 2017 from undocumented workers. The people who sneak into this country work don't stay in this country to build lives here. This is why so many are turning down generous offers from Mexico to get humanitarian and work visas -- pure greed. They want to make more, so they can send it home. That is not seeking asylum, embracing the US as one's new home but exploiting it, and exploiting our asylum laws. Time for immigration reform.
24
@gmt
Greedy landscapers, greedy busboys, greedy crop pickers, greedy nannies, greedy housemaids sending a portion of their pittance wages home to support their families..this outrage must be stopped!
12
As usual Trumps' policy is not source generated. Rather than go to the heart of the problem he is using the band-aid approach-that poor administrators use. The problem lies in the countries from which these people are coming. Trumps' cutting the funding to the countries where migrants come from is causing the increase in illegal boarder crossing. We need to to do our best to make those countries safer-more funding-encourage more UN participation, etc., That will eventually slow the illegal boarder crossings. Without getting into all the Trump bashing-he is simply not fit for the job. Although, his latest claim that HE stopped family separation-that Obama started, was, well, just a flat out lie.
14
If you're not renting from Trump you can't become a citizen or claim asylum. That's going to be new rule #1.
10