Page 123 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2373113121122123124125133173223 ... LastLast
Results 1,221 to 1,230 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1221
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    I think we are talking two different things.

    At the border, for those coming across and in, is where they had the problem as the parents would be processed. During that process the children were separated from the parents and housed separately. That was where they have to process 20k to 40k people a month. About 2000 or so are kids.

    That is wholly different than DREAMERS or related who have been here for a while, or the normal ICE raids.

  2. #1222
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    The order allows families to be detained together; he didn't subjugate the memorandum. Thus, the impetus is placed on congress.

    In Trump's brash way:


    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...213525764.html
    the constitution grants the executive the power to enforce the law within certain bounds, depending on how congress write and passes the law.

    within that range trump choose to enforce the law far more draconian than had been done under obama. including but not limited too separating newborn babies, and forcing them to defend themselves in court. you have produced two memos that exactly show that trump did exactly that, he changed the obama policy of enforcement, and then he changed it back. this is within his power as executive to do so.

    no one forced him to. congress could have forced him to, if they wrote and passed a law stating exactly how it should be enforced, but they didn't. its on him and his administration how to enforce the law.

    he choose it. civics lesson over.


    ergo, the solution is not to have done it, and stop doing it.

    it was always that easy. there was and continues to be no crisis.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Hey, lets speed this along a lot more Irony: Trump already stopped this months ago, it took him about a week from seeing the problem, the media exploding, thinking there wasn't a good solution, to fixing it. The difference, as I pointed out, was under Obama most of the families were separated, and under Trump all of them were

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ly-separation/

    That is why it is worthless discussing politics with Gordon. He is still complaining about a problem that was there before Trump, Trump fixed, and he still is complaining. Just #walkaway
    this is, as already detailed categorically false.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-02-2018 at 01:21 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #1223
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    D0c,

    Just a little bit of where it stands at the moment:

    Are there legal impediments for family detention?
    Yes, to an extent. This is where the 1997 Flores settlement agreement comes in.

    The Flores agreement established nationwide standards for the detention, release, and treatment of unaccompanied minors in custody of the U.S. government. It stemmed from lawsuits against the government alleging mistreatment of detained unaccompanied minors during the 1980s.

    The agreement outlined to whom an unaccompanied children can be released as they await a resolution of their immigration case. If a release is not possible, then the government is required to hold a child in the "least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs."

    The California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016 held that the Flores agreement applied to all minors, not just those traveling unaccompanied. Federal courts have also interpreted the agreement as limiting children detention to no more than 20 days.

    Given these restrictions, the Obama administration released parents alongside their children.

    Trump directed the Attorney General to file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Flores settlement and allow immigration officials "under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings."

    Courts must now address this issue in light of Trump's order.


    "The Flores settlement will need to be revised to allow indefinite detention of children," Kevin Johnson, immigration law professor and dean of the UC Davis School of Law, previously told PolitiFact. "That seems unlikely. The court refused to allow the Obama administration to detain children for long periods in response to the influx of Central Americans in 2014.
    "
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...his-administr/

    (see, I used politifact for y'all)

    Lets repeat this:

    Courts must now address this issue in light of Trump's order.
    So, like Irony said, Flores is what is causing a bit of the hold up. It is in the courts right now, and these changes should allow this to get sorted.

    More back story:

    THE FLORES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT:

    limits the government*s ability to indefinitely incarcerate immigrant children
    requires licensing by state child protection authorities of facilities that hold them
    The government is also required to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives, or licensed programs willing to accept custody.
    If a suitable placement is not immediately available, the government is obligated to place children in the *least restrictive* setting appropriate to their age and any special needs
    Holds the government responsible to implement standards relating to the care and treatment of children in immigration detention

    CURRENT ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED REGULATIONS:

    The Justice Department had asked the federal court for permission *to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.*

    WHAT THIS MEANS:

    These proposed regulations, published in the Federal Register Sept. 7TH, are an attempt to strip legal protections from families and children seeking refuge in the United States. This move comes just months after the administration attempted to discourage illegal immigration by separating migrant families at the border, but then backed down because of the resulting uproar. As of last week, nearly 500 children were still in government-run shelters without their parents.
    The complication comes from the parents being incarcerated on a consistent basis. If all of the parents are charged, instead of just most, then all of the kids need to have a suitable alternative housing arranged. And there was not housing for families who are detained, just parents.

    It is a huge fing mess really.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-02-2018 at 02:54 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #1224
    Right. But the Federal government doesn't need to detain them in the first place. That's a choice. Nothing in the law requires them to do so.

  5. #1225
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Wha......... what do you think we should be doing? Just letting anybody walk in who they want to let walk in? Give them a sticker? Point them to a motel 6 and say, hey, come back in 2 weeks so we can deport you? Here is an ankle bracelet and a Friday's vibrating coaster so you know when it is your turn? While you are here play nice?
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #1226
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    If you have a U.S. child, have been living here for 10 years, and you can show being deported will cause hardship to that child you are allowed to remain in the U.S. I did this for three months while in law school, that was the claim we always dealt with in addition to asylum claims made after they were caught. And if someone is accused of breaking the law, you can detain them while they away trial because they could be a flight-risk. It's constitutional.

    If that's the law the EO cites then no wonder this admin is a bunch of amateurs:

    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    That's a criminal statute. 8 U.S. Code ? 1329 of that part grants jurisdiction to the federal district courts. Therefore, you can only fine or imprison them after a federal criminal court finds them guilty of violating the law. That doesn't say you need to immediately imprison immigrants caught crossing the border illegally. It also gives the court the option of either fining them or imprisonment. Further, the court or the prosecutor can decide whether the person shall remain out of custody until his or her trial (i.e. bail). I don't have time to go dig it out, but based on my experience, I'm assuming the executive branch has option under the law to either charge the illegal alien under this statute or take them through removal proceedings before an administrative law judge given that most of the cases are handled by Administrative Law Judges, not federal courts because it's cheaper and more efficient. If they didn't have that option, the ALJ's wouldn't exist.
    Maybe I'm not understanding the point of this post. They're being detained prior to trial, not imprisoned. The ALJ expedites the time to trial to reduce the detention period (the evil that existed under Obama), because we can't just deport without due process. That'd be conviction without trial.

    edit: I'd also say an illegal immigrant, by definition, is a flight-risk.

  7. #1227
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    Right. But the Federal government doesn't need to detain them in the first place. That's a choice. Nothing in the law requires them to do so.
    even detaining, the law does not require they be separated, nor for the children to defend themselves.


    this was a conscious and purposeful choice the trump admin made. there is no law or regulation requiring they did this. they choose to do so.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #1228
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Maybe I'm not understanding the point of this post. They're being detained prior to trial, not imprisoned. The ALJ expedites the time to trial to reduce the detention period (the evil that existed under Obama), because we can't just deport without due process. That'd be conviction without trial.

    edit: I'd also say an illegal immigrant, by definition, is a flight-risk.
    detaining folks pre-trial is not the evil.

    i've stated this at least a half a dozen times.

    detaining folks pre-trial is a perfectly normal, understandable law enforcement action. ive said this at least a half a dozen times.

    even worse than josh, you don't actually understand the argument and posts against you.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-02-2018 at 03:25 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #1229
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    detaining folks pre-trial is not the evil.

    detaining folks pre-trial is a perfectly normal, understandable law enforcement action. ive said this at least a half a dozen times.
    Then answer the question, what specific policy is creating the "evil?"

    Multiple choice:

    a) 8 USC 1325
    b) the memorandum
    c) the executive order
    d) the Flores Settlement Agreement
    e) the constitution which requires a trial

  10. #1230
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016 held that the Flores agreement applied to all minors, not just those traveling unaccompanied.
    *cough*cough*
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •