Jump to content

DACA, immigration reform whatever

hayden_horn

By hayden_horn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, SDG said:

You are correct. You can apply for defensive asylum up to a year after arrival but can’t have been deported.  That’s a rather odd process...

In civilized countries that acknowledge the international right of asylum people are not charged with a crime for entering the country to request asylum.

This is another administration policy that must change either through a policy change or legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

mchookem
mchookem

bitching about immigrants not paying income tax while simultaneously bragging about paying immigrants with cash so they can avoid paying income tax. i did not have that on my bingo card.  

TSipper
TSipper

We owe this girl and her family nothing. I do not care if they are fleeing violence, that is not the responsibility of this country. 7 billion people on this planet, is it our job to take all of them

Chrispy
Chrispy

Spin it however you wish, this man forced his daughter into the river, not our policies. 

Posted Images

achooloco

achooloco 1067

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Russia! /Hugo

 

But kinda serious. If Russian actives measures are being deployed to split Americans, there is zero reason to think that they are not doing so on the immigration issue via social network. 

Before this comment gets lost, I’m still catching up, completely agree with this opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomIdoit

RandomIdoit 655

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That any law requires (1) the detention of anyone crossing the border in a secure facility, (2) that release prior to trial is somehow incompatible with the law (it is in fact a common practice for pretty much any crime), and (3) that the fact that some family detention were run in unlawful fashion means that no such facility can be operated.

1 and 2 are 100% false. 3 is of questionable validity as the second flores case turned on the nature of the specific facilities and how they were utilized. Again, you are full of shit. 

I just want to point out that if someone is a flight risk or at risk to not show up to trial, they are not released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3654

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That any law requires (1) the detention of anyone crossing the border in a secure facility, (2) that release prior to trial is somehow incompatible with the law (it is in fact a common practice for pretty much any crime), and (3) that the fact that some family detention were run in unlawful fashion means that no such facility can be operated.

1 and 2 are 100% false. 3 is of questionable validity as the second flores case turned on the nature of the specific facilities and how they were utilized. Again, you are full of shit. 

Nice backtrack.  So you at least admit that law requires children to be separated?

Now to address your work-arounds:

1) Detention is used to enforce border laws (and really any high crime for that matter), which is the entire point.  Previous administrations have had policies of non-enforcement or immediate release in spite of what the law requires.

2) There are still bond hearings in immigration court.  I don't get your point unless it is a restatement of number 1.

3) New Flores turned on keeping families together not being an acceptable excuse to violate the previous Flores.  Calling it the "specific nature of the facilities" is a disingenuous attempt to obfuscate that.  "The "specific nature of the facilities" was to allow for family detention.

 

Trump is following the laws closer than any other administration.  You just don't like what the law is. 

I agree. The law is stupid.

Our legal immigration is so slow and restrictive that it incentivizes people to make specious asylum claims.  Then, we can't process the volume of asylum claims, so they illegally cross.  Then, they get arrested and separated from their children because of the unintended consequences of a human trafficking law.  When we address that, Flores v Lynch is especially dumb because it is a lose-lose.  Bad for families/children and bad for enforcement.

Its like Mr. Bumble said, "If that's the law, the law is an ass."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17534

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Nice backtrack.  So you at least admit that law requires children to be separated?

Now to address your work-arounds:

1) Detention is used to enforce border laws (and really any high crime for that matter), which is the entire point.  Previous administrations have had policies of non-enforcement or immediate release in spite of what the law requires.

2) There are still bond hearings in immigration court.  I don't get your point unless it is a restatement of number 1.

3) New Flores turned on keeping families together not being an acceptable excuse to violate the previous Flores.  Calling it the "specific nature of the facilities" is a disingenuous attempt to obfuscate that.  "The "specific nature of the facilities" was to allow for family detention.

 

Trump is following the laws closer than any other administration.  You just don't like what the law is. 

I agree. The law is stupid.

Our legal immigration is so slow and restrictive that it incentivizes people to make specious asylum claims.  Then, we can't process the volume of asylum claims, so they illegally cross.  Then, they get arrested and separated from their children because of the unintended consequences of a human trafficking law.  When we address that, Flores v Lynch is especially dumb because it is a lose-lose.  Bad for families/children and bad for enforcement.

Its like Mr. Bumble said, "If that's the law, the law is an ass."

I am not back tracking. The law doesnt require separation of the familes. That is a policy choice in enforcement of the laws. There is no provision so that says everyone must be detained. Certain folks may be detained in certain circumstances (e.g., flight risk). However, as pointed out, there are other ways to handle that, like ankle monitors. Like most laws, there is a ton of room for discretion by both the prosectors and the courts. Lawyers recognize that. Judges recognize that. I am sorry that you cannot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30213

Posted
Posted
On 6/19/2018 at 8:47 PM, Ragnarok said:

One part of the solution is to quit  incentivizing people to bring children with them to the border, which is what we did before Obama de facto opened the border.

Where did you hear this? True question.   Also, in what way did Obama 'open up the border', de facto or not, when he had record number of deportations in his terms?  I'll hang up and let Hannity answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27655

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

So, now they're going start holding immigrants in camps at military bases?  You do know the total number will get above 200,000 very quickly, right?  This will not end well.

Guess we have to increase military budgets again then /s

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
Well, you can bet your ass the media isn't going to cover this child.
 
DcNBMcyVwAAuSA2.jpg

Well, they shouldn’t. We don’t want to encourage such conduct. Little cheater isn’t even wearing a blindfold.
This. The immigration threat is manufactured for political purposes. 

And this.

Look, we need a real, functioning immigration system and border, as it’s simply a part of a healthy, functioning society. And what we have now is unquestionably broken, in every possible direction.

But in terms of the effects on the country of the system being the way it is, it’s de minimis.

Brown people bussing tables and putting up roofs are easy and defenseless bogeymen and distractions. That’s their biggest role in our politics and government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas73

Texas73 420

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Where did you hear this? True question.   Also, in what way did Obama 'open up the border', de facto or not, when he had record number of deportations in his terms?  I'll hang up and let Hannity answer. 

Fox News says Obama opened up the border numerous times a day so it must be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaucyJack

SaucyJack 3488

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Well, you can bet your ass the media isn't going to cover this child.

 

DcNBMcyVwAAuSA2.jpg

OPERATION CONDOR

Quote

was a campaign of political repression and state terror in Latin American countries involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, mainly civilians, originally planned by the CIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

Wiki doesn't begin to cover what actually happened. Many folks can't comprehend this reality. We had many good people lose their lives over these stupid policies, but I digress.

 

Edited by SaucyJack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 44757

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Equinox said:

That second one is a fine source of info. Good job, good effort.

The United States is drugging and beating (and putting in cages) immigrant children and this is what you’re focused on? 

Are you and your party going after Blacks next?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Equinox

Equinox 95

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

The United States is drugging and beating (and putting in cages) immigrant children and this is what you’re focused on? 

 

I'm just giving you the same medicine other posters get around here. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

I find that hard to believe. If that actually happened, everyone in the entire chain of command needs to be thrown in prison. 

It is more likely that they were given tetanus shots, vaccines, or possibly antibiotics, and the stress and anxiety of separation and imprisonment is what caused the exhaustion. Still bad, but not as bad. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 44757

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I find that hard to believe. If that actually happened, everyone in the entire chain of command needs to be thrown in prison. 

It is more likely that they were given tetanus shots, vaccines, or possibly antibiotics, and the stress and anxiety of separation and imprisonment is what caused the exhaustion. Still bad, but not as bad. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27655

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I find that hard to believe. If that actually happened, everyone in the entire chain of command needs to be thrown in prison. 

It is more likely that they were given tetanus shots, vaccines, or possibly antibiotics, and the stress and anxiety of separation and imprisonment is what caused the exhaustion. Still bad, but not as bad. 

There's been multiple journalists reporting that they're dosing kids with anything psychotics because for some reason they're melting down after being ripped away from their parents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...