Bit of both, really: the detention conditions are deliberately inhumane, and the separation of families is particularly objectionable. The normal solution to people who breach immigration rules is to deport them. Why has the US given up on deportation? Is it really deemed to be cheaper to just endlessly imprison people?

People also want temporary residence to be given to asylum seekers, as specified in the UN Convention on Refugees. Allowing someone to remain in the country is not the same as granting them citizenship. It is also not the same as entitlement to benefits, entitlement to vote, etc.

> Why has the US given up on deportation? Is it really deemed to be cheaper to just endlessly imprison people?

To be fair here, those who support the detention regime are also generally in favour of deportation. However, current US laws require amounts of due process (to evaluate the claim on its merits) that -- combined with current administrative resources -- result in a slow timeline for hearings and deportation.

Therefore, immigration advocates argue for continuing the past practice of release on bail-like conditions, whereas restrictionists argue that such release is itself a threat (e.g., claimants can 'disappear' as illegal immigrants) and detention is necessary notwithstanding the human cost.

In the meantime, there is also evidently an informal argument that detention itself should act as a deterrent, as weaponized cruelty. This argument is legally and morally reprehensible, but as far as I know policymakers have not officially made it.

Literally no one is proposing giving citizenship to everyone who wants it, so your 'genuine question' comes off as completely insincere at best.

What else would you call DACA, sanctuary cities, or the proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, then? Eventually, they or their children become citizens, which is little different from the policy you claim literally no one is proposing.

==Eventually, they or their children become citizens, which is little different from the policy you claim literally no one is proposing.==

Literally none of those are "giving citizenship to everyone who wants it". To take your eventually example to the next step, if their children's children have kids on US soil, they will automatically be US citizens. By your logic, the existing US Constitution is "little different" from the same policy.

The key difference is the existing constitution doesn't say those without citizenship must be allowed to enter or stay.

Which is why they apply for asylum, a process enshrined in the US Code.

8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

Which is irrelevant to the policies I mentioned that started this subthread.

> Do folks just want better detention conditions or are we advocating for giving citizenship to everyone who wants it?

False dichotomy.

That’s not a dichotomy. It’s not an exhaustive list.

Exactly. It's presented as an exhaustive list, making it a false dichotomy:

"A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, when others are available."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/false_dichotomy

In idiomatic English, "or" can imply a dichotomy as you suggest or an incomplete list, which was my intention. I wasn't thinking about the ambiguity when I wrote it, so that's my fault.

Fair enough.

Don't be coy. Your question comes with the framing you choose for it; people would rather you be more forthright about it.

I'm not being coy, I don't know what the specific concerns are. I've been quite explicit about this.

Which means that you're taking as the neutral stance to not have a concern with arbitrary detention of asylum seekers. You have implicitly taken a position on who has the burden of justifying themselves. Do you see how people can take issue with that since it violates international law concerning the rights of asylum seekers?

I'm not taking a neutral stance. I don't understand the issue and I'm asking for clarification on one of the points. I'm not passing judgment on either position nor am I asking anyone to "justify themselves". What a bizarre accusation...

Process them and decide what to do on a case-by-case basis. "Catch and release". Just like we were doing. It was working very well and it was humane.

There was never really a crisis until we created one.

The crisis was created by Obama's DOJ breaking decades old precedent and allowing asylum claims for local crime or safety problems. This opened the floodgates so to speak. Before then valid grounds for asylum claims were (mostly) limited to the threat of harm caused by a government.

Recently, Trump's DOJ reverted policy back to the way had been for decades. This has reduced the incentive to send women and children first because domestic violence/crime are no longer grounds for asylum claims.