Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Nah, it's a pretty easy question to answer, so just answer it. Use California for an example if you want where the limit if 48 hours. Are you fine with being detained for a couple weeks beyond that? Do you think that would be fine, generally, if people were just detained by police for a few weeks without being charged?
|
I have already answered your question in my previous reply. You are mixing two different policies that have very little, if anything, in common, other than they both contain a timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
The point is that the timeline is not arbitrary. It's there for a reason.
|
It is there because of a court settlement. Not because of Congressional or Presidential action. How that court settlement came up with 72 hours as the magic number (although other readings mention a 20 day limit for other immigrants) is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
And the solution isn't about what you do after the timeline has passed, the solution is do what you need to do to carry out the process within the legal timeframe you are to carry out that process. Do not exceed the timeframe, that is your job. Not all children get to enter the US, it's not like they're just waiting around for spots to place them on the US side of the border, it's that the process is taking too long, which is creating a backlog, which means kids are being kept in unfit conditions for weeks at a time.
|
If your proposed solution (note the “if”, because I’m unclear if you have ever proposed one) is to just get the children out the door within the specified timeframe no matter what, then I honestly think that you will end up causing more harm to the children than any that they would suffer by remaining in the holding facilities.
And I suppose that if the mandate is to get the kids out no matter what, then, at a minimum, either there will be extremely limited vetting of the foster parents/resettlement homes/alleged family members, or a massive increase in hiring for those in charge of the process, which, of course, will cost money. Or both. Regardless, I’m sure that any necessary budgetary increases will be easy to get through Congress and no one will really care if the kids are put in abusive homes—so long as they are out of a holding facility within the specified time, all is good, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
It's either this or put the kids on the street. How myopic.
|
Sorry, but I’m still not sure what your alternative is. Just speed up the existing process? If so, how do you propose to do that? Hire more people to manage the migrants? Randomly place the children with random families that share the same surname as the child and hope for the best? Bus half of the kids to Canada to reduce the number that the US has to deal with and let the Canadians deal with the other half?