DACA, immigration reform whatever

[Spankytoes 1,739]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Literally everyone who is not a sociopath holds laws in varying degrees of respect and wants them enforced variably. You do, too.

Should everyone who jaywalks be ticketed? What about someone who walks out of a bar drunk and gets into an uber?

Everyone is for the selective enforcement of laws and for the selective use of sentencing. The only difference is which laws, which sentences, and the ethical/moral standards behind those distinctions.

Should everyone over the legal limit be arrested when they drive a car? If they made it home OK, and lives/property were not damaged, does that make the fact that they drive drunk OK? If they are caught, and don’t have the means to pay for the consequences, should there be ramifications for their failure to pay?

We can play the “what-if” game all day to find loopholes in any example. If you Jaywalk, you run the risk of getting a ticket. That’s a little less severe than driving drunk, which is why the consequences for doing such aren’t on par. 

[Spankytoes 1,739]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, the answer is obvious: forcible separation of children from their parents, in order to gain political leverage.

The admin just told us so, straight up.

Duh.

I don’t disagree with your viewpoint. It’s completely shitty and obviously being used as a pawn in some weird game of chess Trump is playing. (Ok, maybe Tic-Tac-Toe) I just don’t think we’re focusing on the real issue, which is the economic drain caused by illegal immigration. Children being pulled from families and out into cages is a sexier headline. We’re approaching from 2 different sides.

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

Today I learned Spanky is a heartless piece of shit. 

[Seasick Sailor 3,747]

10 minutes ago, Lucid said:

The real solution is clear - get Congress to make a law so that children can be detained with their families until a determination is made

 

[Spankytoes 1,739]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Today I learned Spanky is a heartless piece of shit. 

You forgot racist and privileged. 

[Brisketexan 105,069]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

I don’t disagree with your viewpoint. It’s completely shitty and obviously being used as a pawn in some weird game of chess Trump is playing. (Ok, maybe Tic-Tac-Toe) I just don’t think we’re focusing on the real issue, which is the economic drain caused by illegal immigration. Children being pulled from families and out into cages is a sexier headline. We’re approaching from 2 different sides.

I disagree that it's a "sexier headline" issue.

We can have differing policy positions.  We can and should debate them.  And, we should be fucking grownups, figure out some sort of compromise, and get this shit done.  Shoulda happened 20 years ago.

But the minute that one side starts using inhumane treatment of other human beings, including children, to gain leverage in the debate, the game changes.  I don't care what your position is, if you pull out a gun and threaten my kid if I don't give in to your demands, your position just became COMPLETELY irrelevant.  Now, the discussion is and should be about the fact that you just put a gun to my kid's head.

The GOP has overplayed its hand.  In its blind zeal, it has gone a bridge too far.  And there's no going back.

[JBJ 3,654]

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

people claiming Asylum on a protected ground have zero incentive to show up for their hearing?

They don't about half the time, and I think less than that are approved.  So statistically they are more likely to live in America if they don't show up (albeit illegally).

That is a big problem with immigration in general.  As an alternative to detainment, why not ankle bracelets?

[David Dennison 18,850]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

They don't about half the time, and I think less than that are approved.  So statistically they are more likely to live in America if they don't show up (albeit illegally).

That is a big problem with immigration in general.  As an alternative to detainment, why not ankle bracelets?

https://theoutline.com/post/2104/the-u-s-is-tracking-a-record-number-of-immigrants-with-ankle-monitors?zd=1&zi=ciqldfba

[Brisketexan 105,069]

Just now, JBJ said:

They don't about half the time, and I think less than that are approved.  So statistically they are more likely to live in America if they don't show up (albeit illegally).

That is a big problem with immigration in general.  As an alternative to detainment, why not ankle bracelets?

I'm down with that, too.

Seriously, there's dozens and dozens of options out there.

This path is being followed for one reason, and one reason only -- the Admin thinks that putting a metaphorical gun to the heads of families and children gives the admin negotiating leverage.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

6 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Should everyone over the legal limit be arrested when they drive a car? If they made it home OK, and lives/property were not damaged, does that make the fact that they drive drunk OK? If they are caught, and don’t have the means to pay for the consequences, should there be ramifications for their failure to pay?

What you're doing is engaging in the normal discussion of different crimes, which is good.

Everyone who drives over the limit should be, at the very least, temporarily detained and sent home in an Uber with a citation.

Everyone who flees a nation of murder and extreme poverty, seeking a better life in America, should be kept with their family and treated with dignity and respect until they are granted asylum.

Everyone who rapes a baby to death should be imprisoned for life.

Everyone who throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk should get, at the very least, a dirty look.

An old lady who accidentally turns the wrong way onto a one-way street should get a quick wave from an officer to make sure she turns around.

Quote

We can play the “what-if” game all day to find loopholes in any example. If you Jaywalk, you run the risk of getting a ticket. That’s a little less severe than driving drunk, which is why the consequences for doing such aren’t on par. 

 

Playing the "what-if" game is what human beings do. It's the whole fucking point of a society.

[David Dennison 18,850]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

You forgot racist and privileged. 

The latter is a given. You're white and you live in the United States.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

That is a big problem with immigration in general.  As an alternative to detainment, why not ankle bracelets?

Granting them near-immediate asylum and getting them involved in our society and economy in a positive way. I think we should try that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

They were holding CHIP and DACA hostage earlier this year.  

They love going after children, which, beyond sadistic, is weird.

[Spankytoes 1,739]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I disagree that it's a "sexier headline" issue.

We can have differing policy positions.  We can and should debate them.  And, we should be fucking grownups, figure out some sort of compromise, and get this shit done.  Shoulda happened 20 years ago.

But the minute that one side starts using inhumane treatment of other human beings, including children, to gain leverage in the debate, the game changes.  I don't care what your position is, if you pull out a gun and threaten my kid if I don't give in to your demands, your position just became COMPLETELY irrelevant.  Now, the discussion is and should be about the fact that you just put a gun to my kid's head.

The GOP has overplayed its hand.  In its blind zeal, it has gone a bridge too far.  And there's no going back.

I 100% agree with you but it find it surprising that would be your viewpoint after the gun policy debate after the Florida shootings.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

4 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

You forgot racist and privileged. 

You're trying very hard to claim victim status in order to escape from the unbelievable stupidity of your shitty arguments.

[TornACL 7,698]

Take extreme position. Never compromise. Use anything within reach as leverage.

This works when you're fucking people in the ass on real estate deals, but it's not exactly an effective way to govern, either on domestic issues or when negotiating with other world leaders.

[Brisketexan 105,069]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

I 100% agree with you but it find it surprising that would be your viewpoint after the gun policy debate after the Florida shootings.

I don't follow you.  Is one side of the debate in the gun issue threatening to harm children?  Seriously, as unseemly as the issue is, I don't think that anyone is doing that there.

[Spankytoes 1,739]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What you're doing is engaging in the normal discussion of different crimes, which is good.

Everyone who drives over the limit should be, at the very least, temporarily detained and sent home in an Uber with a citation.

Everyone who flees a nation of murder and extreme poverty, seeking a better life in America, should be kept with their family and treated with dignity and respect until they are granted asylum.

Everyone who rapes a baby to death should be imprisoned for life.

Everyone who throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk should get, at the very least, a dirty look.

An old lady who accidentally turns the wrong way onto a one-way street should get a quick wave from an officer to make sure she turns around.

Playing the "what-if" game is what human beings do. It's the whole fucking point of a society.

Of course. That’s why abortion is still legal and pro-lifers have asterisks. 

[JBJ 3,654]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I'm down with that, too.

Seriously, there's dozens and dozens of options out there.

This path is being followed for one reason, and one reason only -- the Admin thinks that putting a metaphorical gun to the heads of families and children gives the admin negotiating leverage.

I don't think so, but I don't hold it past them to use it when the opportunity arises.

Trump wanted to get tougher on the border in general, plus violence in not one but 3 Latin nations has created a surge at the border.  It's a storm from both sides.

I actually think we'd have this problem without the tougher on the border policies because we saw it happen a number of times under previous admins when there was a surge like this.

[Spankytoes 1,739]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You're trying very hard to claim victim status in order to escape from the unbelievable stupidity of your shitty arguments.

I’ve immigrated a wife, MIL and FIL here through legal means and I’m a tax payer. So yeah, I’m going to give an opinion.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

They were holding CHIP and DACA hostage earlier this year.  

They love going after children, which, beyond sadistic, is weird.

Just a reminder of how evil these people were before the kid camps.

 

[TornACL 7,698]

8 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Today I learned Spanky is a heartless piece of shit. 

For someone who allegedly travels as much as he does to have no global context or experience through which to view this issue, I'd say that he wasted his money on all those travels...even if he did get them all at a great price.

[Lucid 3]

7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

people claiming Asylum on a protected ground have zero incentive to show up for their hearing?

No not zero. But the vast majority of asylum applications are denied

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

I’ve immigrated a wife, MIL and FIL here through legal means and I’m a tax payer. So yeah, I’m going to give an opinion.

Have all the bad opinions you want. No one called you racist so stop with the false victim bullshit.

[JBJ 3,654]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Granting them near-immediate asylum and getting them involved in our society and economy in a positive way. I think we should try that.

Most won't qualify for asylum.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Just now, Lucid said:

No not zero. But the vast majority of asylum applications are denied

Ladies and gentlemen... we've found the reason they don't show up.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Just now, JBJ said:

Most won't qualify for asylum.

Change the standards. We act like our immigration requirements are God's Law from On High

[WhatTheBuck 28,775]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This path is being followed for one reason, and one reason only -- the Admin thinks that putting a metaphorical gun to the heads of families and children gives the admin negotiating leverage.

Well, they're run by an organized crime family so it's keeping perfectly in character. 

[JBJ 3,654]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Change the standards. We act like our immigration requirements are God's Law from On High

Meh, I like our asylum laws.

They can try to immigrate like normal people.  But, yeah, that's the one that needs fixing.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Just now, JBJ said:

Meh, I like our asylum laws.

They can try to immigrate like normal people.  But, yeah, that's the one that needs fixing.

This is a baffling sentence.

[Brisketexan 105,069]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Meh, I like our asylum laws.

They can try to immigrate like normal people.  But, yeah, that's the one that needs fixing.

Well, they've already pulled up part of the ladder.  In fact, the family I'm familiar with would not be welcome here any more (they got here under a domestic violence case -- could also have arguably made a political case, as her family had been targeted by the Taliban, but those are harder to prove, even when her husband was blown up by the Taliban).  Meanwhile, we're in the process of helping a family assimilate and become future great Americans.  I like that approach.

[zork 629]

laws, rules, can be baffling.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Like normal people.... still get your kids taken.

 

 

[JBJ 3,654]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

This is a baffling sentence.

Lulz.  Go through general immigration, which needs to be fixed, which is why they make specious claims for asylum.

I don't think we should accept third nation asylees from Mexico at all.  We don't from Canada because of this very problem.

[David Dennison 18,850]

Just now, JBJ said:

Meh, I like our asylum laws.

They can try to immigrate like normal people.  But, yeah, that's the one that needs fixing.

Or they can just overstay a visa.  

[Washpark 176]

15 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I’ve immigrated a wife, MIL and FIL here through legal means and I’m a tax payer. So yeah, I’m going to give an opinion.

With an anchor baby!!

[Lucid 3]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There is no law against it that I'm aware of. 

The government is bound by a legal settlement that resulted from the Reno v. Flores case and a subsequent judicial decision from the 9th Circuit in 2016. Immigration authorities cannot hold children in custody until an immigration determination is made, even if they're with their parents. Which means the parents can't be held without separating them from their children

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Wow. This issue has really brought out some people’s inner pieces of shit.

I’m getting more Briskety by the day.

[Brisketexan 105,069]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Wow. This issue has really brought out some people’s inner pieces of shit.

I’m getting more Briskety by the day.

Welcome, lady!

And....

[ChickenSandwich 9,828]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

 

There we go.  In the midst of all the shit, some decent and human conversation and problem-solving.  With the caveat that NOTHING is perfect, this is the kind of reasonable -- if difficult -- conversation we should be having.

Again, I've disagreed with Johnny on a LOT as of late, but on immigration, the Venn diagram of our positions has always been two circles that overlap more than they don't.  There are PLENTY of folks who (1) are NOT for "open borders, no immigration laws" but (2) are AGAINST this pointless forced separation of children from their parents.  I'd actually venture a guess that it's a sizable majority of Americans.

Let families apply for asylum.  If there is no means to guarantee that they will show up for their asylum hearing, then we should be able to detain the family unit humanely, and together.  Process their asylum application as quickly as possible.  If they meet the standard, they stay.  If not, they go.

12345000000k

[atomheartbevo 89,628]

31 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Take extreme position. Never compromise. Use anything within reach as leverage.

This works when you're fucking people in the ass on real estate deals, but it's not exactly an effective way to govern, either on domestic issues or when negotiating with other world leaders.

It’s also not an effective way to keep your party’s majority. 

Especially if your people just tried to blame all of this on Congress  

Something you may need to consider if you plan on not being impeached at some point. 

[zork 629]

Quote

Nielsen says U.S. has asked asylum seekers to come back later

Seems like a reasonable request given we are full and there is a disagreement over what should happen to potential asylum seekers.  Just gonna have to wait.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nielsen-says-us-has-asked-asylum-seekers-to-come-back-later-2018-06-18

[ChickenSandwich 9,828]

22 minutes ago, Lucid said:

The government is bound by a legal settlement that resulted from the Reno v. Flores case and a subsequent judicial decision from the 9th Circuit in 2016. Immigration authorities cannot hold children in custody until an immigration determination is made, even if they're with their parents. Which means the parents can't be held without separating them from their children

But wait. What about the heartless monsters?  Why is the same state and democratic leaders losing their shit over the a situation they completely created?  They passed into law the inability to keep families together. Why? Because it got them de facto open borders and like clock work they now claim victim status for the situation they fought for in court. 

Family detention centers are the obvious best/worst case solution but that is not on the table thanks to screaming racist. 

You left the Rep no choice but to strictly enforce the laws on the books AND those created from the previous administration. 

We wouldn’t have this problem separating families if we didn’t have California judges making speration the only option. Zero responsibility taken. They should be free to overturn their own poor decision immediately if helping families were truly the goal. 

Its not. They are getting exactly what they want. Media and political outrage, using the same pawns they accuse other of exploiting for political gain. 

Everyone fucking sucks. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 18,850]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

But wait. What about the heartless monsters?  Why is the same state and democratic leaders losing their shit over the a situation they completely created. They passed intO law the inability to keep families together. Why? Because it got them de facto open borders and like clock work they now claim victim status for the situation they fought for in court. 

Family detention centers are the obvious best/worst case solution but that is not on the table thanks to the side screaming racist. 

You keft the Rep no choice but to strictly enforce the laws on the books AND those created from the previous administration. 

We wouldn’t have this problem separating families if we didn’t have California judges making speration the only option. Zero responsibility taken. They should be free to come overturn their own poor decision immediately if helping families were truly the goal. 

Its not. They are getting exactly what they want. Media and political outrage, using the same pawns they accuse other of exploiting for political gain. 

Everyone fucking sucks. 

The Democrats thank you. November is going to be great.

[JBJ 3,654]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, they've already pulled up part of the ladder.  In fact, the family I'm familiar with would not be welcome here any more (they got here under a domestic violence case -- could also have arguably made a political case, as her family had been targeted by the Taliban, but those are harder to prove, even when her husband was blown up by the Taliban).  Meanwhile, we're in the process of helping a family assimilate and become future great Americans.  I like that approach.

That's not what asylum is, though. 

Asylum is supposed to be: I am here and I can't go back because I'm a targeted group of my nation.

Third-nation asylees and victims of other kinds of violence are not protected by international law.

I will say that being a target of violence and having no recourse for protection from your government is at least a consideration (which I believe is your example).

Third-nation asylum makes no sense.

[Dahobbs 17,526]

31 minutes ago, Lucid said:

The government is bound by a legal settlement that resulted from the Reno v. Flores case and a subsequent judicial decision from the 9th Circuit in 2016. Immigration authorities cannot hold children in custody until an immigration determination is made, even if they're with their parents. Which means the parents can't be held without separating them from their children

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

Let's find some language:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.  

Edited June 18, 2018 by Dahobbs
edit: god, quotes infuriate me on this site. Shit needs fixing.

[Dahobbs 17,526]

9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

But wait. What about the heartless monsters?  Why is the same state and democratic leaders losing their shit over the a situation they completely created?  They passed into law the inability to keep families together. Why? Because it got them de facto open borders and like clock work they now claim victim status for the situation they fought for in court. 

Family detention centers are the obvious best/worst case solution but that is not on the table thanks to screaming racist. 

You left the Rep no choice but to strictly enforce the laws on the books AND those created from the previous administration. 

We wouldn’t have this problem separating families if we didn’t have California judges making speration the only option. Zero responsibility taken. They should be free to overturn their own poor decision immediately if helping families were truly the goal. 

Its not. They are getting exactly what they want. Media and political outrage, using the same pawns they accuse other of exploiting for political gain. 

Everyone fucking sucks. 

None of this is true though. I provided the link to the settlement. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Dahobbs

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

None of this is true though. I provided the link the settlement. 

So the chicken guy lied? I for one am shocked. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

The ruskies and the alt right wackos are working serious overtime trying to somehow justify the unjustifiable. It’s pretty amusing to watch it all unfold, until you realize the reality of what they are trying to defend. 

[Equinox 95]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats thank you. November is going to be great.

This will be old forgotten news soon, and then you'll have to find something else to be outraged about. 

Meanwhile the fallout from the IG report is going to be coming to a head, and the Meuller investigation will be toast.