DACA, immigration reform whatever

[JBJ 3780]

39 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m still a little confused. Is the only reason they are separating the kids is to serve as a deterrent? Is there no other reason?

They legally cannot detain children with adults. And DHS can only detain children for so long.  This isn't new.

[Francisco 2.0 32543]

56 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I like how Trump is supposedly just enforcing Obama's policy but Obama was weak on immigration.

I like how Trump squeals with glee over repudiating everything Obama did with executive orders, etc. but is powerless to toss this "law" aside.  

[4th&Five 41904]

 

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

This is Trump's go to move.  Blow something up "because", tells Congress to fix it but then disagrees with everything Congress does.  DACA was over a year ago.....

[Bill Clinton 73]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

They legally cannot detain children with adults. And DHS can only detain children for so long.  This isn't new.

What is new is not handing them off to human traffickers. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?utm_term=.d862b488a363

Quote

The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers, a Senate investigation has found.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.

And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) initiated the six-month investigation after several Guatemalan teens were found in a dilapidated trailer park near Marion, Ohio, where they were being held captive by traffickers and forced to work at a local egg farm. The boys were among more than 125,000 unaccompanied minors who have surged into the United States since 2011, fleeing violence and unrest in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

 

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

7 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

The next time some liberal brings up Jeff Flake in a positive light, just remember shit like this. 

All talk, no action. If he sits on the sidelines for this one hopefully everyone will agree he's a total fucking fraud. 

 

 

[Equinox 95]

Trump could turn this around very easily by issuing an order to temporarily suspend the practice, with the statement that he is being forced to take action because the democrats won't. 

[retread 2951]

8 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This is Trump's go to move.  Blow something up "because", tells Congress to fix it but then disagrees with everything Congress does.  DACA was over a year ago.....

Someone on TV (maybe a Trump biographer) said that he loves to throw a hand grenade into the room and watch people freak out. It's true.

DACA, screwing with the US/global economy, internment camps for children, etc.

Edited June 19, 2018 by retread

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

4 minutes ago, Equinox said:

Trump could turn this around very easily by issuing an order to temporarily suspend the practice, with the statement that he is being forced to take action because the democrats won't. 

Congratulations for just figuring this out. 

It's more proof that separating children is EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP WANTS. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, achooloco said:

Deleted in part but I don’t think unfairly, or with any intent to misinterpret, I’m just on my phone.  

Htown, equinox, random idiot, indredulity maybe? and bayafuga fugabaya or whatever dumbfuck name that poster has. They’ve taken turns mass posting for over a day now.  It is a very vocal group on par in number with those who can’t stomach child abuse so your observation of “a few” rings hollow and untrue.

Honest question, how much more extreme can you stomach?! Where is your line? It’s fucking kids yo, kids. One parent already committed suicide. But you’re ok with that I see. But hey, i also see you’re cool with government sanctioned child abuse? And that isn’t hyperbole, that is from the  president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. You’re mr. thumbs up guy when nursing babies are kidnapped from their mothers? If they take away your kid, you haven’t seen them in weeks, and the government has NO PLAN to reunite you, that’s fucking kidnapping. You can call it whatever the hell whitewashed sterilized government Fox News propaganda term you want but it is a distinction without a difference for anyone with an ounce of morality, ethics, or intelligence. You’re fuck yeah Amerikkka when little kids are scolded for playing and kept in cages and a guard chooses to quit instead of separating siblings who are hugging? At what point does it get so bad that you are willing to discuss child abuse since it is then normalized? 

At what point do you think the government has gone too far if the above just makes you go “meh”?

I think in dire situations it’s better to discuss & evaluate facts and to make rational decisions.  It’s better to do this even if others aren’t.  It’s less ideal to vilify all those who aren’t frantic as not caring about the situation and to seek validation from others who take this approach.  

[Pancho 46054]

 

[Anastasis 23699]

Nice thought, but shorting congress finding its balls is a winning trade.  If there is one outcome that I hope for in 2019, its congress taking some steps to permanently neuter certain excesses of the executive branch.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/family-separation-immigration-congress-end-it/

It’s time for legislative impotence to end. One presidential administration enters into a consent decree that creates a “nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody” of federal immigration authorities and makes it binding on future administrations. Another administration unilaterally implements a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants that works to incentivize additional  illegal immigration — including illegal immigration by families with kids. The next administration reverses course, adopting a so-called zero-tolerance policy that effectively combines with the consent decree to create a new punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegal entry into the United States: family separation, including the separation of very young children from their parents.

Think about the chain of events. A consent decree creates new law without a statute and without even regulatory rulemaking. Massive exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” can either effectively write a statute out of the U.S. Code or enhance its penalties well beyond the legislative intent. At each turn, the president doesn’t just enforce the law, he makes the law — with Americans increasingly dependent on the character and wisdom of the man in the Oval Office to prevent abuse.

The Founders shudder.

No matter where you stand on the merits of Trump’s border crackdown, it simply strains credulity to believe that Congress intended family separation to be a natural and inevitable consequence of prosecuting unlawful entry. Nowhere is there evidence that Congress has intended family separation as a deterrent against illegal immigration. Yet, here we are. A president has acted, the public is reacting, and the confidence in Congress to assert reasonable control is so low that it can’t be located with an electron microscope.

It’s time, Congress. It’s time to start the process of taking back your constitutional authority. If you can’t do it by taking the baby step of prohibiting draconian family separations in the routine enforcement of immigration law, one wonders if you’ll ever be able to do it. If you can’t pass legislation permitting families to be held together, then you’re a servant of the executive branch. You’re bonded to settlement agreements executed without your consent.

Yes, activists are right when they say that Trump could stop family separations tomorrow, if he wished. But the best check on the president isn’t hashtags or press releases or think pieces. It’s the check the Founders designed: an active Congress exercising its lawful authority over immigration in America.

It’s a sad sign of the times that a piece like this will likely be viewed by some (most?) readers as naïve — as not proposing “real solutions,” because “everyone knows” Congress has its head so far up its partisan arse that it has forgotten the art of political compromise and largely abandoned reasoned debate. And those readers will probably be right. After all, Congress has happily delegated vast amounts of its constitutional power to the president, and shown no sign that it intends to take it back.

Is anyone furious that President Trump is risking a booming economy and vital allied relationships with potentially harmful tariffs? Ask why Congress has delegated so much trade authority to the White House. Are you uncomfortable that presidents seem to launch military strikes at will? Ask multiple Congresses what they’ve done to preserve the exclusive legislative power to declare war. Congress is now passing bills filled with huge, intentional gaps — with the full knowledge that the executive will eagerly promulgate new regulations to fill them in. Then it watches presidents rule with “pen and phone” and evaluates unilateral action based on the outcome, rather than on the fatally flawed process that led to it.

If you wonder why Americans feel increasingly disconnected from the federal government and impotent in the face of its awesome power, well, how should they feel when their one vote out of 130 million for president seems like the only chance they have to be heard, and like even that matters so darn little?

Yes, I want the president to end his administration’s family-separation policy. He doesn’t need Congress to do the right thing. America can secure its border without taking a child from his mother’s arms to prosecute a misdemeanor. And if Trump ceases the practice tomorrow, then I’ll be grateful that he relented. But the health of our constitutional republic shouldn’t depend so much on presidential wisdom. Today there’s a sense of urgency. There’s a bipartisan cry to “do something.” And there is, in fact, “something” to do. Congress can pass a law, and if it’s focused, open to compromise, and creative, it can do so by such a margin as to override the will of the president. It should do so, and there’s no better time than now.

 

[retread 2951]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Congress and the president could literally reinstate family detention with a one-page bill overriding the Flores ruling and settlement.   Congress could have done it under Obama to end catch-and-release.   This is entirely an issue of Republicans using illegal immigrants as a partisan football, whether to attack Obama for catch-and-release or, now, to use toddlers and babies as hostages. 

A one-page bill from Congress reinstating family detention.  That is all it would take.   Yes, they will still be criticized for other aspects of it, but families would not be separated like this.  And it's not like DACA, where at least there is a reasonable argument for combining it with law that makes fewer Dreamers going forward (that is, excuse their presence, but add stricter measures so more kids aren't brought over). I get that.  But here, there is no enforcement downside to reinstating family detention.   They'll still be detained and deported.  They'll just be together. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Dbeasy 15526]

They legally cannot detain children with adults. And DHS can only detain children for so long.  This isn't new.

Help me understand this better. If they legally can’t detain children with adults, what have we been doing for the last several years? Why can’t we just deport them together, children with adults? Is it because of political asylum court proceedings take more than 30 days? I’m confused about how things used to work. And, is there any other legitimate reason besides deterrence for changing?

[Bill Clinton 73]

Lol, didnt realize the pictures circulated were during the Obama admin? Hilarious.

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

HAHAHAHA I click on his youtube page and the first video is called "Take the Red Pill". 

Stupid-Smokey, is that you?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Nice thought, but shorting congress finding its balls is a winning trade.  If there is one outcome that I hope for in 2019, its congress taking some steps to permanently neuter certain excesses of the executive branch.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/family-separation-immigration-congress-end-it/

It’s time for legislative impotence to end. One presidential administration enters into a consent decree that creates a “nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody” of federal immigration authorities and makes it binding on future administrations. Another administration unilaterally implements a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants that works to incentivize additional  illegal immigration — including illegal immigration by families with kids. The next administration reverses course, adopting a so-called zero-tolerance policy that effectively combines with the consent decree to create a new punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegal entry into the United States: family separation, including the separation of very young children from their parents.

Think about the chain of events. A consent decree creates new law without a statute and without even regulatory rulemaking. Massive exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” can either effectively write a statute out of the U.S. Code or enhance its penalties well beyond the legislative intent. At each turn, the president doesn’t just enforce the law, he makes the law — with Americans increasingly dependent on the character and wisdom of the man in the Oval Office to prevent abuse.

The Founders shudder.

No matter where you stand on the merits of Trump’s border crackdown, it simply strains credulity to believe that Congress intended family separation to be a natural and inevitable consequence of prosecuting unlawful entry. Nowhere is there evidence that Congress has intended family separation as a deterrent against illegal immigration. Yet, here we are. A president has acted, the public is reacting, and the confidence in Congress to assert reasonable control is so low that it can’t be located with an electron microscope.

It’s time, Congress. It’s time to start the process of taking back your constitutional authority. If you can’t do it by taking the baby step of prohibiting draconian family separations in the routine enforcement of immigration law, one wonders if you’ll ever be able to do it. If you can’t pass legislation permitting families to be held together, then you’re a servant of the executive branch. You’re bonded to settlement agreements executed without your consent.

Yes, activists are right when they say that Trump could stop family separations tomorrow, if he wished. But the best check on the president isn’t hashtags or press releases or think pieces. It’s the check the Founders designed: an active Congress exercising its lawful authority over immigration in America.

It’s a sad sign of the times that a piece like this will likely be viewed by some (most?) readers as naïve — as not proposing “real solutions,” because “everyone knows” Congress has its head so far up its partisan arse that it has forgotten the art of political compromise and largely abandoned reasoned debate. And those readers will probably be right. After all, Congress has happily delegated vast amounts of its constitutional power to the president, and shown no sign that it intends to take it back.

Is anyone furious that President Trump is risking a booming economy and vital allied relationships with potentially harmful tariffs? Ask why Congress has delegated so much trade authority to the White House. Are you uncomfortable that presidents seem to launch military strikes at will? Ask multiple Congresses what they’ve done to preserve the exclusive legislative power to declare war. Congress is now passing bills filled with huge, intentional gaps — with the full knowledge that the executive will eagerly promulgate new regulations to fill them in. Then it watches presidents rule with “pen and phone” and evaluates unilateral action based on the outcome, rather than on the fatally flawed process that led to it.

If you wonder why Americans feel increasingly disconnected from the federal government and impotent in the face of its awesome power, well, how should they feel when their one vote out of 130 million for president seems like the only chance they have to be heard, and like even that matters so darn little?

Yes, I want the president to end his administration’s family-separation policy. He doesn’t need Congress to do the right thing. America can secure its border without taking a child from his mother’s arms to prosecute a misdemeanor. And if Trump ceases the practice tomorrow, then I’ll be grateful that he relented. But the health of our constitutional republic shouldn’t depend so much on presidential wisdom. Today there’s a sense of urgency. There’s a bipartisan cry to “do something.” And there is, in fact, “something” to do. Congress can pass a law, and if it’s focused, open to compromise, and creative, it can do so by such a margin as to override the will of the president. It should do so, and there’s no better time than now.

 

Good thoughts.  There’s seems to be comparatively little concern over the fact that America is becoming more and more dominated by the executive branch.  The way the conversation is framed is that the problem is this particular king, not the fact that we are now ruled by a king.  But don’t worry, things will all be better when we get the next king in.  At least the people get to choose a new one every four years.  I mean, we do get to choose our own king among two candidates selected by party systems that few people understand.  So this is a true democratic republic just as was intended by the founding fathers. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Guest

[seven 1368]

3 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

HAHAHAHA I click on his youtube page and the first video is called "Take the Red Pill". 

Stupid-Smokey, is that you?

Yes it is, it's been quite obvious. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Nice thought, but shorting congress finding its balls is a winning trade.  If there is one outcome that I hope for in 2019, its congress taking some steps to permanently neuter certain excesses of the executive branch.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/family-separation-immigration-congress-end-it/

It’s time for legislative impotence to end. One presidential administration enters into a consent decree that creates a “nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody” of federal immigration authorities and makes it binding on future administrations. Another administration unilaterally implements a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants that works to incentivize additional  illegal immigration — including illegal immigration by families with kids. The next administration reverses course, adopting a so-called zero-tolerance policy that effectively combines with the consent decree to create a new punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegal entry into the United States: family separation, including the separation of very young children from their parents.

Think about the chain of events. A consent decree creates new law without a statute and without even regulatory rulemaking. Massive exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” can either effectively write a statute out of the U.S. Code or enhance its penalties well beyond the legislative intent. At each turn, the president doesn’t just enforce the law, he makes the law — with Americans increasingly dependent on the character and wisdom of the man in the Oval Office to prevent abuse.

The Founders shudder.

No matter where you stand on the merits of Trump’s border crackdown, it simply strains credulity to believe that Congress intended family separation to be a natural and inevitable consequence of prosecuting unlawful entry. Nowhere is there evidence that Congress has intended family separation as a deterrent against illegal immigration. Yet, here we are. A president has acted, the public is reacting, and the confidence in Congress to assert reasonable control is so low that it can’t be located with an electron microscope.

It’s time, Congress. It’s time to start the process of taking back your constitutional authority. If you can’t do it by taking the baby step of prohibiting draconian family separations in the routine enforcement of immigration law, one wonders if you’ll ever be able to do it. If you can’t pass legislation permitting families to be held together, then you’re a servant of the executive branch. You’re bonded to settlement agreements executed without your consent.

Yes, activists are right when they say that Trump could stop family separations tomorrow, if he wished. But the best check on the president isn’t hashtags or press releases or think pieces. It’s the check the Founders designed: an active Congress exercising its lawful authority over immigration in America.

It’s a sad sign of the times that a piece like this will likely be viewed by some (most?) readers as naïve — as not proposing “real solutions,” because “everyone knows” Congress has its head so far up its partisan arse that it has forgotten the art of political compromise and largely abandoned reasoned debate. And those readers will probably be right. After all, Congress has happily delegated vast amounts of its constitutional power to the president, and shown no sign that it intends to take it back.

Is anyone furious that President Trump is risking a booming economy and vital allied relationships with potentially harmful tariffs? Ask why Congress has delegated so much trade authority to the White House. Are you uncomfortable that presidents seem to launch military strikes at will? Ask multiple Congresses what they’ve done to preserve the exclusive legislative power to declare war. Congress is now passing bills filled with huge, intentional gaps — with the full knowledge that the executive will eagerly promulgate new regulations to fill them in. Then it watches presidents rule with “pen and phone” and evaluates unilateral action based on the outcome, rather than on the fatally flawed process that led to it.

If you wonder why Americans feel increasingly disconnected from the federal government and impotent in the face of its awesome power, well, how should they feel when their one vote out of 130 million for president seems like the only chance they have to be heard, and like even that matters so darn little?

Yes, I want the president to end his administration’s family-separation policy. He doesn’t need Congress to do the right thing. America can secure its border without taking a child from his mother’s arms to prosecute a misdemeanor. And if Trump ceases the practice tomorrow, then I’ll be grateful that he relented. But the health of our constitutional republic shouldn’t depend so much on presidential wisdom. Today there’s a sense of urgency. There’s a bipartisan cry to “do something.” And there is, in fact, “something” to do. Congress can pass a law, and if it’s focused, open to compromise, and creative, it can do so by such a margin as to override the will of the president. It should do so, and there’s no better time than now.

 

That's a long book.  Two things should happen. 

1. Trump ends the practice today regardless of what Congress does. 

2. Congress passes an immigration reform bill after actual deliberation, discussion, and compromise. 

Trump's hostage taking only means we get a rushed bill designed to punish Trump as much as stop DHS from breaking families apart. 

[Bill Clinton 73]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's a long book.  Two things should happen. 

1. Trump ends the practice today regardless of what Congress does. 

2. Congress passes an immigration reform bill after actual deliberation, discussion, and compromise. 

Trump's hostage taking only means we get a rushed bill designed to punish Trump as much as stop DHS from breaking families apart. 

Couldn't this have been done during this?

1/9/2018

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Trump promised Tuesday to sign what he called a "bill of love" to extend protections to 800,000 immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children — if Congress can work out the details.

"You folks are going to have to come up with a solution," Trump told 25 lawmakers in a remarkable televised negotiation at the White House. "And if you do, I'm going to sign that solution." 

But funding for a wall along the border with Mexico remains a sticking point, as Trump insisted that border security remain a part of any deal. 

Lawmakers are under a March 5 deadline — imposed by Trump — to come up with a legal fix to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA, as it's known, is now the main stumbling block holding up a wide range of other Trump administration immigration priorities. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/09/trump-meets-congressional-leaders-immigration/1016369001/

But congress is fucking corrupt. Both sides are complete garbage. GOP wants cheap labor, Dems want more big government voters.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

Help me understand this better. If they legally can’t detain children with adults, what have we been doing for the last several years? Why can’t we just deport them together, children with adults? Is it because of political asylum court proceedings take more than 30 days? I’m confused about how things used to work. And, is there any other legitimate reason besides deterrence for changing?

As I understand it, the Central American refugee crisis that started in 2014 has flooded our system, both for illegal entrants and asylum seekers.  For families, Obama tried to use family detention to hold them while the immigration/deportation process was followed, but court decisions interpreting federal law and previous court decisions ruled that kids cannot be held in that situation for more than 20 days (look up Flores for more details).

As a result, there are three options for families apprehended at the border:  (1) Congress overriding Flores by passing a simple law, (2) the president not prosecuting the misdemeanor offense of "illegal entry" through the criminal justice system, instead processing the families through the civil immigration and deportation process, and in the meantime releasing the families with the expectation that the parents will show up for their immigration hearing (which they often don't), or (3) charging the parents criminally with the misdemeanor of illegal entry, putting them in jail, separating their kids, and throwing the kids into the Office of Refugee Resettlement system, which is using massive prison camps to handle the influx. 

After trying family detention, Obama went with option 2, which the Rs mocked as "catch and release" while passing nothing to reinstate family detention or otherwise solve the problem.  Obama's policy was "felons, not families," which had its own flaws, but was basically a policy intended to focus criminal resources on illegals who commit non-immigration crimes instead of mere illegal entrants.   Trump and Sessions kept that going for awhile, despite their current claim that they have no choice but to follow their current policy, but a couple months ago, when border apprehensions increased, enacted a "zero tolerance" policy that required all illegal entrants to be charged with that misdemeanor (or the related felony for repeat offenders), which had the necessary consequence of separating them from their kids.   This was by design to create a hostage situation to scare off future immigrants, gain leverage for the wall and other policy concessions, and satisfy a bloody-thirsty base of deplorables. 

Also, legal asylum seekers (as opposed to illegal immigrants) have been thrown into this system as well by Trump and Sessions.  The law permits them to apply at a port of entry, but the port of entries are now wrongfully turning them away, saying come back later because we're too overloaded.   These asylum seekers then try to cross into the country rather than hanging out with their kids in Drugmurderville, Mexico across the border, and are apprehended and treated as illegal entrants.    Sessions has also greatly narrowed the grounds on which asylum can be sought. 

That is my full understanding.  Any errors are unintentional, and I'll gladly take accurate corrections if I got any of that wrong. 

[Anastasis 23699]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's a long book.  Two things should happen. 

1. Trump ends the practice today regardless of what Congress does. 

2. Congress passes an immigration reform bill after actual deliberation, discussion, and compromise. 

Trump's hostage taking only means we get a rushed bill designed to punish Trump as much as stop DHS from breaking families apart. 

A  viable solution as I see it is to immediately send resources to the border to staff up ports of entry for processing asylum applications. Trump gets to keep his zero tolerance policy. No separations are required because families who use the port of entry should not be subject to prosecution. And we process people in an orderly fashion through the existing legal framework. I won't hold my breath on #2, but staffing the ports has zero negative impact unless your objective is just being an asshole.  

Edited June 19, 2018 by Anastasis
asylum not amnesty

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

3 minutes ago, Bill Clinton said:

Couldn't this have been done during this?

1/9/2018

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/09/trump-meets-congressional-leaders-immigration/1016369001/

But congress is fucking corrupt. Both sides are complete garbage. GOP wants cheap labor, Dems want more big government voters.

All made worse by a President who favors a politically and morally chaotic situation over compromise. How is he not culpable in this situation? 

[Brian Fantana 6856]

Yep that's definitely Bitch Smokey

[achooloco 1086]

48 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I think in dire situations it’s better to discuss & evaluate facts and to make rational decisions.  It’s better to do this even if others aren’t.  It’s less ideal to vilify all those who aren’t frantic as not caring about the situation and to seek validation from others who take this approach.  

So it is dire but you won’t answer the questions? 

[JBJ 3780]

41 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Help me understand this better. If they legally can’t detain children with adults, what have we been doing for the last several years? Why can’t we just deport them together, children with adults? Is it because of political asylum court proceedings take more than 30 days? I’m confused about how things used to work. And, is there any other legitimate reason besides deterrence for changing?

There's an immigration surge which both makes the cases take longer to hear and gives us a lack of detention facilities.

The rule ceiling is one family, one cell, 20 days.  Children cannot be kept with any other adults.

DHS notifies HHS of children within 3 days for illegal border crossings.  HHS can place the children immediately, they are under no obligation to wait on the hearings.  Their priority is to get the children into care.  I'm guessing there's not a problem with placing kids too quickly though, since we are using old warehouses as detention centers.  That is for illegal crossings, it is actually quite difficult to be separated if you enter at a port. 

That's compounded by our zero-tolerance enforcement of illegal border crossings.  We could just selectively enforce the border laws and not detain families with children.  Or not detain families with infants, etc.  That's a whole other issue.

Obama rolled with slightly different policies at different times: I believe the most recent (post-Flores) was to release families and children on parole if an immediate guilty plea could be obtained.  I'm not sure how the timings would work out with border courts under this plan.  The courts might not be able to move quickly enough.  Most also skip out on their parole.

Edited June 19, 2018 by JBJ

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

36 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

As I understand it, the Central American refugee crisis that started in 2014 has flooded our system, both for illegal entrants and asylum seekers.  For families, Obama tried to use family detention to hold them while the immigration/deportation process was followed, but court decisions interpreting federal law and previous court decisions ruled that kids cannot be held in that situation for more than 20 days (look up Flores for more details).

As a result, there are three options for families apprehended at the border:  (1) Congress overriding Flores by passing a simple law, (2) the president not prosecuting the misdemeanor offense of "illegal entry" through the criminal justice system, instead processing the families through the civil immigration and deportation process, and in the meantime releasing the families with the expectation that the parents will show up for their immigration hearing (which they often don't), or (3) charging the parents criminally with the misdemeanor of illegal entry, putting them in jail, separating their kids, and throwing the kids into the Office of Refugee Resettlement system, which is using massive prison camps to handle the influx. 

After trying family detention, Obama went with option 2, which the Rs mocked as "catch and release" while passing nothing to reinstate family detention or otherwise solve the problem.  Obama's policy was "felons, not families," which had its own flaws, but was basically a policy intended to focus criminal resources on illegals who commit non-immigration crimes instead of mere illegal entrants.   Trump and Sessions kept that going for awhile, despite their current claim that they have no choice but to follow their current policy, but a couple months ago, when border apprehensions increased, enacted a "zero tolerance" policy that required all illegal entrants to be charged with that misdemeanor (or the related felony for repeat offenders), which had the necessary consequence of separating them from their kids.   This was by design to create a hostage situation to scare off future immigrants, gain leverage for the wall and other policy concessions, and satisfy a bloody-thirsty base of deplorables. 

Also, legal asylum seekers (as opposed to illegal immigrants) have been thrown into this system as well by Trump and Sessions.  The law permits them to apply at a port of entry, but the port of entries are now wrongfully turning them away, saying come back later because we're too overloaded.   These asylum seekers then try to cross into the country rather than hanging out with their kids in Drugmurderville, Mexico across the border, and are apprehended and treated as illegal entrants.    Sessions has also greatly narrowed the grounds on which asylum can be sought. 

That is my full understanding.  Any errors are unintentional, and I'll gladly take accurate corrections if I got any of that wrong. 

 

If only all posts in here could be this well thought out and written.

[retread 2951]

Thanks, mojo. Very helpful.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, achooloco said:

So it is dire but you won’t answer the questions? 

There is nothing to be gained in addressing fabricated accusations from one whose goal is to vilify.  If you wanted a serious conversation and to genuinely understand my thoughts then you would not have posted gratuitous nonsense.  

Edited June 19, 2018 by Guest

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Nice thought, but shorting congress finding its balls is a winning trade.  If there is one outcome that I hope for in 2019, its congress taking some steps to permanently neuter certain excesses of the executive branch.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/family-separation-immigration-congress-end-it/

It’s time for legislative impotence to end. One presidential administration enters into a consent decree that creates a “nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody” of federal immigration authorities and makes it binding on future administrations. Another administration unilaterally implements a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants that works to incentivize additional  illegal immigration — including illegal immigration by families with kids. The next administration reverses course, adopting a so-called zero-tolerance policy that effectively combines with the consent decree to create a new punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegal entry into the United States: family separation, including the separation of very young children from their parents.

Think about the chain of events. A consent decree creates new law without a statute and without even regulatory rulemaking. Massive exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” can either effectively write a statute out of the U.S. Code or enhance its penalties well beyond the legislative intent. At each turn, the president doesn’t just enforce the law, he makes the law — with Americans increasingly dependent on the character and wisdom of the man in the Oval Office to prevent abuse.

The Founders shudder.

No matter where you stand on the merits of Trump’s border crackdown, it simply strains credulity to believe that Congress intended family separation to be a natural and inevitable consequence of prosecuting unlawful entry. Nowhere is there evidence that Congress has intended family separation as a deterrent against illegal immigration. Yet, here we are. A president has acted, the public is reacting, and the confidence in Congress to assert reasonable control is so low that it can’t be located with an electron microscope.

It’s time, Congress. It’s time to start the process of taking back your constitutional authority. If you can’t do it by taking the baby step of prohibiting draconian family separations in the routine enforcement of immigration law, one wonders if you’ll ever be able to do it. If you can’t pass legislation permitting families to be held together, then you’re a servant of the executive branch. You’re bonded to settlement agreements executed without your consent.

Yes, activists are right when they say that Trump could stop family separations tomorrow, if he wished. But the best check on the president isn’t hashtags or press releases or think pieces. It’s the check the Founders designed: an active Congress exercising its lawful authority over immigration in America.

It’s a sad sign of the times that a piece like this will likely be viewed by some (most?) readers as naïve — as not proposing “real solutions,” because “everyone knows” Congress has its head so far up its partisan arse that it has forgotten the art of political compromise and largely abandoned reasoned debate. And those readers will probably be right. After all, Congress has happily delegated vast amounts of its constitutional power to the president, and shown no sign that it intends to take it back.

Is anyone furious that President Trump is risking a booming economy and vital allied relationships with potentially harmful tariffs? Ask why Congress has delegated so much trade authority to the White House. Are you uncomfortable that presidents seem to launch military strikes at will? Ask multiple Congresses what they’ve done to preserve the exclusive legislative power to declare war. Congress is now passing bills filled with huge, intentional gaps — with the full knowledge that the executive will eagerly promulgate new regulations to fill them in. Then it watches presidents rule with “pen and phone” and evaluates unilateral action based on the outcome, rather than on the fatally flawed process that led to it.

If you wonder why Americans feel increasingly disconnected from the federal government and impotent in the face of its awesome power, well, how should they feel when their one vote out of 130 million for president seems like the only chance they have to be heard, and like even that matters so darn little?

Yes, I want the president to end his administration’s family-separation policy. He doesn’t need Congress to do the right thing. America can secure its border without taking a child from his mother’s arms to prosecute a misdemeanor. And if Trump ceases the practice tomorrow, then I’ll be grateful that he relented. But the health of our constitutional republic shouldn’t depend so much on presidential wisdom. Today there’s a sense of urgency. There’s a bipartisan cry to “do something.” And there is, in fact, “something” to do. Congress can pass a law, and if it’s focused, open to compromise, and creative, it can do so by such a margin as to override the will of the president. It should do so, and there’s no better time than now.

 

Odd that French never mentions Paul Ryan once in this entire article.  

[achooloco 1086]

10 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

There is nothing to be gained in addressing fabricated accusations from one whose goal is to vilify.  If you wanted a serious conversation and to genuinely understand my thoughts then you would not have posted gratuitous nonsense.  

What part of hat I wrote was fabricated?

[JBJ 3780]

Serious question: what's in the Feinstein bill?

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

42 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There's an immigration surge which both makes the cases take longer to hear and gives us a lack of detention facilities.

The rule ceiling is one family, one cell, 20 days.  Children cannot be kept with any other adults.

DHS notifies HHS of children within 3 days for illegal border crossings.  HHS can place the children immediately, they are under no obligation to wait on the hearings.  Their priority is to get the children into care.  I'm guessing there's not a problem with placing kids too quickly though, since we are using old warehouses as detention centers.  That is for illegal crossings, it is actually quite difficult to be separated if you enter at a port. 

That's compounded by our zero-tolerance enforcement of illegal border crossings.  We could just selectively enforce the border laws and not detain families with children.  Or not detain families with infants, etc.  That's a whole other issue.

Obama rolled with slightly different policies at different times: I believe the most recent (post-Flores) was to release families and children on parole if an immediate guilty plea could be obtained.  I'm not sure how the timings would work out with border courts under this plan.  The courts might not be able to move quickly enough.  Most also skip out on their parole.

This misses the point that immigration offenses were previously prosecuted as civil matters. Since this April, by directive from Sessions, this administration prosecutes all cases as federal criminal matters, which results in the separation of families. This administration knew/knows the consequences of its choices and Sessions was on Fox last night with Laura Ingraham talking about it’s deterrent effects. Thus we have thousands of children we know about who now have to be housed in separate detention facilities while parents wait weeks to be processed. Oh and the administration makes almost no effort to actually reunite the parents with their children. Trump warned of immigrants “infesting” the country on Twitter. 

But here come GOP troll bots to tell me Obama did this

[Dahobbs 18190]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

They legally cannot detain children with adults. And DHS can only detain children for so long.  This isn't new.

We've gone through this. It isn't true. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, achooloco said:

What part of hat I wrote was fabricated?

Your post was loaded with baseless accusations and fabrications.  Nothing I've posted even remotely suggests that I'm ok with suicides or that I endorse the ridiculous things you state as accusatory questions (actually they are declarative accusations that you end with question marks).

If you seek out thoughtful people and take the time to understand their points and put in the effort to engage their points rationally, then over time you will find that you can have a serious discussion & debate whenever you like on any topic that interests you.  If you find yourself always discussing things with idiots and you have a hard time being given any serious consideration from people with opposing views, then maybe there is a reason for this. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 19441]

24 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Serious question: what's in the Feinstein bill?

Here's the text.

[Dahobbs 18190]

39 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

There is nothing to be gained in addressing fabricated accusations from one whose goal is to vilify.  If you wanted a serious conversation and to genuinely understand my thoughts then you would not have posted gratuitous nonsense.  

You vilify villains. That is what one does with them. And these are the actions of villains.  

[JBJ 3780]

 

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

We've gone through this. It isn't true. 

We did go through this.  No one has refuted it, and there's been a bounty of law and case law presented to show it is true.

Edited June 19, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

 

We did go through this.  No one has refuted it, and there's been a bounty of laws and case law presented to show it is true.

Then why wasn't the previous administration doing what this one is doing?

[Dahobbs 18190]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

We did go through this.  No one has refuted it, and there's been a bounty of laws and case law presented to show it is true.

Your statement was that can't keep families together. They absolutely can, the settlement even requires that kids be allowed contact with related and detained adults. They can't keep kids with unrelated adults for extended periods, which is completely different.  I linked the whole fucking document.  

Edited June 19, 2018 by Dahobbs

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Then why wasn't the previous administration doing what this one is doing?

Because Obama was a law-breaker obviously. 

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

 

We did go through this.  No one has refuted it, and there's been a bounty of laws and case law presented to show it is true.

Read my post above. If the administration chooses charge every adult crossing the border with a federal crime and therefore house that adult in federal prison awaiting their court appearance, then yes, the families will be separated as a result. The difference was that prior administrations dealt with the same offense as a civil matter before an immigration court, which allowed for families to stay together. This is an active choice by Sessions. 

[Brisketexan 106625]

Your statement was that can't keep families together. They absolutely can, the settlement even requires that kids be allowed contact with related adults. They can't keep kids with unrelated adults for extended periods, which is completely different.  I linked the whole fucking document. 

This. The truth matters. The Flores decree is not confusing. Read it if you have any doubts.

[Dahobbs 18190]

16 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Here is the settlement, https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/attachments/flores_v._reno_settlement_agreement_1.pdf

Let's find some language:

 

Sounds to me like the minor is entitled to contact with family--even if the family member is also detained. And that the segregation only applies to non-related adults. None of this is incompatible with family relief housing until status is determined.  

For those that still need help:

Quote

 

IV STATEMENTS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY 11. The INS treats, and shall continue to treat, all minors in its custody with dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors. The INS shall place each detained minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs, provided that such setting is consistent with its interests to ensure the minor's timely appearance before the INS and the immigration courts and to protect the minor's well-being and that of others.

***

V PROCEDURES AND TEMPORARY PLACEMENT FOLLOWING ARREST 12. Whenever the INS takes a minor into custody, it shall expeditiously process the minor and shall provide the minor with a notice of rights, including the right to a bond redetermination hearing if applicable. Following arrest, the INS shall hold minors in facilities that are safe and sanitary and that are consistent with the INS's concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. Facilities will provide access to toilets and sinks, drinking water and food as appropriate, medical assistance if the minor is in need of emergency services, adequate temperature control and ventilation, adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and contact with family members who were arrested with the minor. The INS will segregate unaccompanied minors from unrelated adults. Where such segregation is not immediately possible, an unaccompanied minor will not be detained with an unrelated adult for more than 24 hours.

By all means, find the provision that says families must be separated. Oddly enough, the settlement about protecting children DOESN'T FUCKING SAY IT.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Dahobbs

[retread 2951]

Pretty sobering that the WH can say that a law means something completely different than how it was written -- and a sizable portion of US citizens will believe the lies.

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

Law or no law. Separating young kids from their parents is wrong. 

And yes crossing the border illegally is a crime but so is fucking jaywalking. 

Do I agree the way the previous administration handled the situation? No, but I also can sure as hell not like the way the current administration is handling it. 

It isn't that hard. 

 

[David Dennison 19441]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

Pretty sobering that the WH can say that a law means something completely different than how it was written -- and a sizable portion of US citizens will believe the lies.

It's tribalism. Us v. Them. It is exactly the kind of factionalism that worried the Founding Fathers. 

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, JimmyHoffa said:

Law or no law. Separating young kids from their parents is wrong. 

And yes crossing the border illegally is a crime but so is fucking jaywalking. 

Do I agree the way the previous administration handled the situation? No, but I also can sure as hell not like the way the current administration is handling it. 

It isn't that hard. 

 

It is also a civil offense and can be treated as such. It does not have to be treated as a crime.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

3 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

Law or no law. Separating young kids from their parents is wrong. 

And yes crossing the border illegally is a crime but so is fucking jaywalking. 

Do I agree the way the previous administration handled the situation? No, but I also can sure as hell not like the way the current administration is handling it. 

It isn't that hard. 

 

This. The only opposition to this opinion in my life is what I read on this site. Every human I’ve spoken with on this issue agrees.