Blue Crab

Immigrant Children

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Outofoffice has 34 up votes.  Can you up vote yourself?

if you have a sock. And OutOfOffice is clearly a sock of one of the regular right wing haters - but this policy is even too extreme for him.

Maybe @TMSAIL

 

Ok, that's probably not. You know who's not posting right now? @Nailing Malarkey Too The little nazi mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

I wonder if Trump will double down on this policy.  His fascist racist base loves this type of evilness.  

I've read this several times. I don't believe it's true. And if it's true for his racist fascist base, i.e. Nice Nazis, the good ones on the other side, I doubt many of the 63M think this is ok, even the militia folks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Outofoffice has 34 up votes.  Can you up vote yourself?

I figured you were jealous. Here, have an upvote.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

if you have a sock. And OutOfOffice is clearly a sock of one of the regular right wing haters - but this policy is even too extreme for him.

Maybe @TMSAIL

I figured you took your toys and went home. Way to not give up for once in your pathetic life.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The government* of the United States—the thuggish, dishonest and unfathomably cruel administration* that we elected to run the country—has chosen the history of which it will be a part. It is the history of the auction block, of the state-sponsored kidnapper, of the God-alibi-ed prison, of the rattling cattle cars, headed east. That is the history of which the government, and all the people in it, have chosen to be a part. This includes the people who dreamed up this policy, the people who are enforcing this policy, and anyone who isn’t doing anything to stop it. They will be the defendants in the future proceedings, the villains in the future novels, and the monsters in a thousand future nightmares. We choose the history of which we are a part."  - Charles Pierce

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I've read this several times. I don't believe it's true. And if it's true for his racist fascist base, i.e. Nice Nazis, the good ones on the other side, I doubt many of the 63M think this is ok, even the militia folks.

 

I wouldn't be too sure.  You strike me as a Republican, but not a Trump 'tard.  

Many of the right wing posters here are already defending this new, de-humanizing policy-  Dog, Hermetic, Jeff. . etc. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, OutofOffice said:

I figured you were jealous. Here, have an upvote.

Fuck off cunt

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

"The government* of the United States—the thuggish, dishonest and unfathomably cruel administration* that we elected to run the country—has chosen the history of which it will be a part. It is the history of the auction block, of the state-sponsored kidnapper, of the God-alibi-ed prison, of the rattling cattle cars, headed east. That is the history of which the government, and all the people in it, have chosen to be a part. This includes the people who dreamed up this policy, the people who are enforcing this policy, and anyone who isn’t doing anything to stop it. They will be the defendants in the future proceedings, the villains in the future novels, and the monsters in a thousand future nightmares. We choose the history of which we are a part."  - Charles Pierce

"I was just following orders"
 

likely quote of many ICE agents in the future legal proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

  

Many of the right wing posters here are already defending this new, de-humanizing policy-  Dog, Hermetic, Jeff. . etc. . 

The "good Germans".

Somebody who turns a blind eye to criminal atrocities comitted by the government. This includes: needless war, lying to the public, stripping civil rights away from the public, ignoring laws held to keep it in check and disrespecting the general populace.
Even when the man on TV spoke of "alternative facts", Jerry didn't argue or speak out because he was a good German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dacapo said:

Fuck off cunt

You too? Fine. You can have one too. Now go back to bed, you have school in the morning.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RKoch said:

The "good Germans".

Somebody who turns a blind eye to criminal atrocities comitted by the government. This includes: needless war, lying to the public, stripping civil rights away from the public, ignoring laws held to keep it in check and disrespecting the general populace.
Even when the man on TV spoke of "alternative facts", Jerry didn't argue or speak out because he was a good German.

Yup.  I've said it before.  If you want to look at the type of people that led to folks like Mussolini gaining power, look to TMsail, Dog, etc.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

"I was just following orders"
 

likely quote of many ICE agents in the future legal proceedings.

Probably the first order of whispers this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of 6:11 p.m. EDT, Nielsen’s Google biography and Wikipedia link describes her her as a “a notorious child abuser currently serving as the United States Secretary of Homeland Security.” 
 

 

image.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

June 18, 2018 - Stop Taking The Kids, 66 Percent Of U.S. Voters Say, Quinnipiac University Poll...

Source: Quinnipiac University National Poll

June 18, 2018 - Stop Taking The Kids, 66 Percent Of U.S. Voters Say, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Support For Dreamers Is 79 Percent 

American voters oppose 66 - 27 percent the policy of separating children and parents when families illegally cross the border into America, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. 

Republican voters support the separation policy 55 - 35 percent, the only listed party, gender, education, age or racial group to support it, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University National Poll finds. 

American voters also support 79 - 15 percent allowing immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, so-called "Dreamers," to remain and ultimately to apply for citizenship. 

All listed groups support Dreamers, ranging from 61 - 28 percent among Republicans to 94 - 5 percent among Democrats. 

Support for Dreamers has ranged from 77 percent to 81 percent in every Quinnipiac University National Poll conducted this year. 

American voters oppose 58 - 39 percent building a wall along the border with Mexico. The only listed groups to support the wall are Republicans 77 - 17 percent and white voters with no college degree 52 - 44 percent. 

The Trump Administration has been too aggressive in deporting illegal immigrants, 50 percent of voters say, as 13 percent say the administration has not been aggressive enough and 33 percent say the administration has been acting appropriately. 

"When does public opinion become a demand that politicians just can't ignore? Two- thirds of American voters oppose the family separation policy at our borders," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. 

"Neither quotes from the Bible nor get-tough talk can soften the images of crying children nor reverse the pain so many Americans feel." 

"And if you are a Dreamer, voters say, 'We have your back,'" Malloy added. 

Illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay and eventually apply for citizenship, 67 percent of American voters say. 

Another 8 percent say they should be allowed to stay, but not become citizens, and 19 percent say they should be forced to leave. 

Among Republicans, 48 percent say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, while 9 percent say they should be allowed to stay, but not become citizens, and 36 percent say they should be forced to leave. All other listed groups support by wide margins a path to citizenship. 

Legal immigration to the U.S. should be increased, 30 percent of American voters say, as 17 percent say it should be decreased and 49 percent say it should be kept the same. 

From June l4 - 17, Quinnipiac University surveyed 905 voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points, including design effect. Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones. 

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts nationwide public opinion surveys, and statewide polls in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and Texas as a public service and for research. 



Read more: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2550 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anne Coulter just claimed that the migrant children are actors.   The absolute disregard for truth on the part of these idiots leaves me drained to the point of not wanting to even expend the effort to cite it.    This is getting fucking insane.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

His vote count seems to be declining.

SAD!

The sad thing is I know a lot of people personally in real life and the sailing world and if shit for brains is one of those people whom I’ve called a friend in real life I’d be terribly disappointed. If it’s someone who I’ve never met before I’d rather not  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:

Anne Coulter just claimed that the migrant children are actors.   The absolute disregard for truth on the part of these idiots leaves me drained to the point of not wanting to even expend the effort to cite it.    This is getting fucking insane.

They lie because there are gullible morons that believe them. It's a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Anne Coulter just claimed that the migrant children are actors.   The absolute disregard for truth on the part of these idiots leaves me drained to the point of not wanting to even expend the effort to cite it.    This is getting fucking insane.

It does leave one speechless.

Trump and his supporters- Dog, TMsail, Sarosa, etc. . have made the united states a country where there is no such thing as a fact.  Just like Iran, china, N. Korea, Venezuela et al. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s almost certainly not a friend.  I made bad friend decisions early in life but after a certain age you learn to spot and shun the vile assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dacapo said:

The sad thing is I know a lot of people personally in real life and the sailing world and if shit for brains is one of those people whom I’ve called a friend in real life I’d be terribly disappointed. If it’s someone who I’ve never met before I’d rather not  

Maybe you, Razr, fakenews and others  can come toilet paper my house and key my car. Petty pricks

dont worry, some of us are grown ups. Your rep points are safe

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP is shitting themselves over Gropenfurher's new policy. Now Trump has lost Ted Cruz.

NEW: Sen. Ted Cruz to introduce legislation to "mandate that illegal immigrant families must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

It does leave one speechless.

Trump and his supporters- Dog, TMsail, Sarosa, etc. . have made the united states a country where there is no such thing as a fact.  Just like Iran, china, N. Korea, Venezuela et al. 

Their hatred for a diverse society in general, and for 'the black guy' in particular, led them to latch on to the most extreme cult-leader to guide them out of the abyss.

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, OutofOffice said:

Maybe you, Razr, fakenews and others  can come toilet paper my house and key my car. Petty pricks

dont worry, some of us are grown ups. Your rep points are safe

Go pretend you’re Anthony Bourdain 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RKoch said:

GOP is shitting themselves over Gropenfurher's new policy. Now Trump has lost Ted Cruz.

NEW: Sen. Ted Cruz to introduce legislation to "mandate that illegal immigrant families must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children."

Ya, they can prolly figure out that they are more vulnerable on these new internment camps than Trump is.  Everybody knows Trump is a xenophobic, stupid piece of shit-- his base loves it. Now Republicans are looking at the  midterms and realizing it might not be so good for them to be on his side when a Republican, but not a Trump cultist, goes to vote.  And the more Trump's policy continues the more stories will come out and horrible photos and Republicans will simply be known as the Internment Camp party come mid terms.  

This seems like a fairly clear issue of for/against the so-called president's policy.  People (and history) will remember.  

Republicans have a majority in the house and senate.  They can pass Cruz's legislation.  Or be judged on not doing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, OutofOffice said:

Maybe you, Razr, fakenews and others  can come toilet paper my house and key my car. Petty pricks

dont worry, some of us are grown ups. Your rep points are safe

Down vote adding up quickly now.  He’s not got much more time here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be unbearably hot in the Oval Office about now.

"All four living former first ladies — Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Michelle Obama — have stepped out of political retirement to condemn the Trump administration's practice of separating parents and children at the border." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/laura-bush-separating-families-border-cruel-immoral-n884136?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Must be unbearably hot in the Oval Office about now.

"All four living former first ladies — Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Michelle Obama — have stepped out of political retirement to condemn the Trump administration's practice of separating parents and children at the border." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/laura-bush-separating-families-border-cruel-immoral-n884136?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Melania has spoken against the concentration camps also. I hope she doesn't get beaten again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RKoch said:

GOP is shitting themselves over Gropenfurher's new policy. Now Trump has lost Ted Cruz.

NEW: Sen. Ted Cruz to introduce legislation to "mandate that illegal immigrant families must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children."

They know the gig. Lay down with Doggy Stylers, get up with Nazis. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been the plan from day one. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-discussed-separating-moms-kids-deter-asylum-seekers-feb-n884371

WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration as a way to deter asylum-seekers, according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.

Notes from a town hall held for Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officers on Feb. 2, 2017, show that the agency's asylum chief, John Lafferty, told the officers they might have to "hold mothers longer" and "hold children in HHR/ORR," an acronym for facilities for children run by HHS.

Notes from the meeting were first obtained by MSNBC.

The Trump administration has repeatedly maintained that the increasing number of children being separated from their mothers at the U.S. southern border is not a policy of its own making but just a tragic byproduct of enforcing the law against illegal border crossers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Melania has spoken against the concentration camps also. I hope she doesn't get beaten again. 

How do you stop a bully president? I hope he doesn't punch the kidneys again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Down vote adding up quickly now.  He’s not got much more time here.

Oh no! What shall I do about losing so many Rep points!?! 

You seriously think this is effective? You’re dumber than your screen name suggests.

You guys start shit, get slapped around and then gang up and down vote someone for handing you your ass?

Gee, sounds an awful lot like a bunch of middle school girls. You’re too immature to have conversations on politics. Keep playing grownup, maybe one day it’ll come true.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps Nielson's children should be forcibly removed so she doesn't abandon her office in Washington again.
 
 
 
 
A White House official tells @jeffzeleny that @PressSec didn't want to do the briefing today amid questions on child separation policy, so @SecNielsen is being flown in from New Orleans to take questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OutofOffice said:

Oh no! What shall I do about losing so many Rep points!?! 

You seriously think this is effective? You’re dumber than your screen name suggests.

You guys start shit, get slapped around and then gang up and down vote someone for handing you your ass?

Gee, sounds an awful lot like a bunch of middle school girls. You’re too immature to have conversations on politics. Keep playing grownup, maybe one day it’ll come true.

Point of order.

this thread was started by a right winger.

as for you slapping arguments down..very funny.

you need to learn to separate the emotive from the logical.

sure people make emotive statements about the evil of separating children from parents..and emotional debate only has merit when the opposition sees worth in such things as human rights and compassion...so using emotion with some on the right is kind of pointless.

However,

1)Separating children from parents has a dubious  record as a deterrent from law breaking.

If being separated from your children was actually a deterrent to law breaking, your goals would not have a parent in them.

2) It's financially unsustainable..you cant find foster parents for your own children in care..so..what are you going to do? keep them behind fences for ever?? until they reach an age where you can deport them unaccompanied..few problems with ..these kids wont remember where they came from for one..for two..you're going to have to provide all sorts of services eventually.

So..you start looking for "foster countries" offering 3rd world shitholes bags of cash to take the problem off your hands..and get scammed big time.

 

The trouble with tough talking, dog whistling quick fixes with problems re illegal entry..is that after the political furor dies down, you find that you have a long term problem on your hands..you start begging other countries to take your little problems..or bribing them.

Or you start having troubles with your more compliant and co operative neighboures when they chang their governments.

in short, you start looking pretty stupid and regret the day you made the policy out of a thought bubble.

This may not make much sense to you, but I'm using our first hand experience with the troubles that arise from blowhards and their tough talk.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frmr CIA/NSA Dir: The children are being used as hostages for political leverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Nielson's lies exposed.

 

Well, damn, the Devil is breaking out his hockey skates. Mrs Bush and I agree. And even use the same analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to blow up in Herr Furher's face. There's hidden videos coming out...social workers are calling it child abuse...parents are being deported without their children...he's even starting to lose Fox pundits and Republican Reps and Sens. All that's left defending him is white supremacists and neo nazis...and Ann Coulter ("the children are paid  crisis actors"), but I'm being redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have totally lost the plot america ................... :(

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep thinking that the Pride of the GOP has some kind of Randolph and Mortimer Duke bet going on.  "I bet I can lure every racist nazi shitbag in the GOP out into the open, to cast away all plausible deniability and let the freak flag fly."  "No way, not in this day and age."  "Oh, I can definitely do it, they are wanting to come out into the open."  "You're on." "The usual amount?"  "Indeeeeeed.  One Dollar."  

the_bet_is_paid.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the parents have any idea that if they get caught they will be separated from their children? Though I don't agree with the policy, it seems irresponsible of the parents unless they are totally unaware. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

Do the parents have any idea that if they get caught they will be separated from their children? Though I don't agree with the policy, it seems irresponsible of the parents unless they are totally unaware. 

They are coming from places where they and their children are likely to be raped and murdered at any moment.

Is that a better option? Have you been following any of this? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I keep thinking that the Pride of the GOP has some kind of Randolph and Mortimer Duke bet going on.  "I bet I can lure every racist nazi shitbag in the GOP out into the open, to cast away all plausible deniability and let the freak flag fly."  "No way, not in this day and age."  "Oh, I can definitely do it, they are wanting to come out into the open."  "You're on." "The usual amount?"  "Indeeeeeed.  One Dollar."  

the_bet_is_paid.jpg

Eddie Murphy is a lot funnier than this guy though...

  Stephen-Miller1486920668.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

Do the parents have any idea that if they get caught they will be separated from their children? Though I don't agree with the policy, it seems irresponsible of the parents unless they are totally unaware. 

Having taught ESL to youngsters from these countries, I assure you, for many staying is not much of an option.   Dostoevsky said  "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."  America is pretty shitty by that measure- we imprison more people than anybody.  Texas even likes to execute retarded folks.  And now we get to add putting kids in cages.  

I encourage you to read this article about the kind of horribleness children from Central America are fleeing.   

Quote

After what happened, Aby's too afraid to go out. And her parents are cool with that.

But her parents won't talk about what happened. They don't want to scare Aby's little brother and sister.

"It's too dangerous to talk about that," she says. "If somebody hears you talk about it, something bad could happen to you."

The family of Aby's best friend, Jessica, has moved away. They're hiding from the gang. They're planning to come to the U.S.

"Then I'll have nothing left of my friend, Aby says. "She'll just be in my head."

After we meet Aby, we start asking people in El Salvador, "Is it normal for girls to shut themselves in the house all day?"

Yes, they tell us. It's the only way to stay safe from the gangs.

In other words, El Salvador is a country of girls with two main choices: Hide from gangs or give in to them.

elsalvadorgirls-6_custom-74ea6e919dccebe

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/10/05/445985671/never-leave-your-house-survival-strategies-for-el-salvador-s-15girls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I' m a bit confused by the explanations coming from the WH on this one. On one hand it's being touted as a good policy to close this loophole through which these baby-packing animals, rapists, thieves and terrorists are flooding our country, primarily by means of deterrence. Who what's their kid snatched from their arms?

 But on the other...it's the Democrats who are making him do it....

 

 

 

  

   

 

  

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I' m a bit confused by the explanations coming from the WH on this one. On one hand it's being touted as a good policy to close this loophole through which these baby-packing animals, rapists, thieves and terrorists are flooding our country, primarily by means of deterrence. Who what's their kid snatched from their arms?

 But on the other...it's the Democrats who are making him do it....

 

"Fund my wall, or the kids get it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

debate only has merit when the opposition sees worth in such things as human rights and compassion...so using emotion with some on the right is kind of pointless.

...And you’ve said all you need to with that statement. My mistake for actually thinking there was any real discussion to be had here. Just downvotes and memes.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Miller's Own Family Is Mad About Immigration Policy That Separates Families

Stephen Miller’s own family is upset that he continues to support President Trump’s immigration policy that is ripping children away from their parents. As Miller continues to support the policy as White House policy advisor, members of his own family are taking to social media to complain about the troubling development 

Forward.com was the first to spot a Facebook post from Miller’s relative Patti Glosser Rudick. On Facebook she wrote: 

“Why aren’t people out demonstrating about children being thrown in cages?… Have we become so immune that we stopped caring?…This is sick sick sick.”

That post was followed up by David S. Glosser, Miller’s uncle, who added a comment to the original Facebook message: “With all familial affection I wish Stephen career success and personal happiness, however I cannot endorse his political preferences.” 

Glosser’s sister Miriam Blosser Miller then chimed in and noted that the Glosser family escaped from Europe, traveled to America with no money in their pockets, and built their own business. 

Forward.com points to David Glosser’s final message as proof that Miller’s family is against him and the Trump administrations policy: 

“My nephew and I must both reflect long and hard on one awful truth… If in the early 20th century the USA had built a wall against poor desperate ignorant immigrants of a different religion, like the Glossers, all of us would have gone up the crematoria chimneys with the other six million kinsmen whom we can never know.” 



https://hillreporter.com/stephen-millers-own-family-made-over-immigration-policy-2777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mickey Rat said:

Do the parents have any idea that if they get caught they will be separated from their children? Though I don't agree with the policy, it seems irresponsible of the parents unless they are totally unaware. 

There was no announcement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Child Abuse"

American Academy Of Pediatrics President Calls Trump Border Policy 'Child Abuse'

By Lydia O'Connor at the Huffington Post 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b27f437e4b0783ae12bfe6d/amp 


“These children have been traumatized on their trip up to the border, and the first thing that happens is we take away the one constant in their life that helps them buffer all these horrible experiences,” she said of the nearly 2,000 children affected by the crackdown. “That’s child abuse.” 

Kraft has recounted to several media outlets what she saw when she recently visited a shelter for migrant children near the U.S.-Mexico border. Even though children were screaming in fear, pounding their fists on the ground in frustration or sitting in unusual silence, neither she nor the shelter workers were allowed to touch or console them, she said.  

Those types of conditions produce “toxic stress” that, when gone unchecked, “inhibits development of their brains,” Kraft told CNN. 

“It disrupts their brain architecture and keeps them from developing language and social emotional bonds and gross motor skills and the development that they could possibly have,” she continued.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RKoch said:

"Fund my wall, or the kids get it"

I think it likely Sessions odd attempt to frame this biblically was a reflection of an internal awareness they might not have all their evangelical base hopping on board this particular crazy train. Indeed Cruz checked out quick. The incoherence of holding it to be good policy while blaming Democrats for making them do it? The result of the mad scramble prompted by an awareness the base was strongly divided by it, and some being downright un-American about it too.  

 This is OK with the Jesus (variously pronounced)? Was the Pope consulted? He will be soon, it will not be pretty. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OutofOffice said:

...And you’ve said all you need to with that statement. My mistake for actually thinking there was any real discussion to be had here. Just downvotes and memes.

piss off then :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Here you go, Dog shit, here's an immigration law that was on the books for decades.  You would have supported it. 

Fugitive Slave Acts, in U.S. history, statutes passed by Congress in 1793 and 1850 (and repealed in 1864) that provided for the seizure and return of runaway slaves who escaped from one state into another or into a federal territory. The 1793 law enforced Article IV, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution in authorizing any federal district judge or circuit court judge, or any state magistrate, to decide finally and without a jury trial the status of an alleged fugitive slave.

Bla...bla...bla...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RKoch said:

Getting their children out of a violent country would appear to be the reason most families seek asylum.

How racist of you to assert that Mexico is a violent country 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gone Drinking said:

How racist of you to assert that Mexico is a violent country 

idiot..most are not mexican...but you knew that:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

idiot..most are not mexican...but you knew that:rolleyes:

But they are crossing from Mexico. International law holds that refugees apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

idiot..most are not mexican...but you knew that:rolleyes:

They are crossing the Mexican border. If their country was so violent why not apply for assylum in Mexico. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

But they are crossing from Mexico. International law holds that refugees apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

There in lies to big problem. Laws. No one wants to follow them anymore. There is always an ecuse for not complying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

But they are crossing from Mexico. International law holds that refugees apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

Um..no it doesn't actually.

B. Safe Country of Asylum

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

12. Application of the “safe-country” concept to asylum countries poses fewer difficulties than arise with countries of origin, as long as the concept is accompanied by appropriate safeguards. In the first instance, it should be recognized that it has some basis in the phraseology of the Convention, where the Convention requires direct arrival from territories where life/freedom is threatened before a particular provision can apply (Article 31 (1)). The notion was also formally put forward in the context of the 1977 Diplomatic Conference on Territorial Asylum, when Denmark proposed that where it appeared that a person already had a connection or close links with another State, if it was reasonable and fair, (s)he should be called upon to request asylum from that State. It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.

13. Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee have also variously given credence to the notion. In this connection, Conclusion 15 (XXX) (1979), para. (h) (vi) is noteworthy:

 

“Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation”.

Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:

  • can enter and remain there,
  • is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
  • will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),
  • has access to a durable solution.

14. The application of the “safe country” concept is also generally consistent with the position, which UNHCR supports, that there should be means to identify the State responsible for examining an asylum request, so as to avoid orbit situations and multiple, simultaneous asylum requests by any one applicant. The European Community Convention on Determining the State Responsible for Examining Asylum Requests Lodged in One of the Member States (the Dublin Convention of 1990), as well as the Additional Schengen Convention relating to the suppression of frontier controls at common borders are both positive developments in this regard.

15. On the other hand, there are difficulties in applying the concept, in particular in deciding how long an individual needs to have stayed in a country and under what circumstances (Is transit sufficient?) before that country can be determined a country of first asylum. In addition, there is the problem of establishing safety (what conditions, for example, qualify as "basic human standards" and what safeguards should be accepted as sufficient to guard against possible refoulement). There may be a need, in this connection, to augment the list, in Executive Committee Conclusion No. 58, of prerequisites for return to include adherence and/or compliance with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as well as basic human rights instruments, including the U.N. Bill of Rights2. Finally there is the problem of ensuring that individual asylum seekers remain able to invoke circumstances militating against return to the "safe" country of asylum.

Conclusion

16. Overall it is UNHCR’s position that, while in principle each State Party to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol has a responsibility to examine refugee claims made to it, “burden-sharing” arrangements allowing for readmission and determination of status elsewhere are reasonable, provided they always ensure protection of refugees and solutions to their problems.

17. Without underestimating the difficulty of reaching agreement on problems such as are mentioned above (length of stay, criteria for establishing safety etc.), the answer may most reasonably lie less in unilateral efforts and more in internationally agreed arrangements which establish formal mechanisms for determining responsibility and which incorporate the “safe-country” notion but at the same time provide for clearly defined and harmonized criteria against which to measure whether countries should be considered safe. Such mechanisms can only be truly successful, in principle and in practice, if certain conditions are met, including agreement between directly concerned parties on: (a) standards of application (to whom the mechanisms apply and with respect to which countries); (b) standards of treatment (how the mechanisms shall be applied and when); (c) operational modalities (treatment of asylum-seekers, arrangements for return and readmission, eventuality of solutions); and (d) monitoring of implementation.

http://www.unhcr.org/afr/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/background-note-safe-country-concept-refugee-status.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

There in lies to big problem. Laws. No one wants to follow them anymore. There is always an ecuse for not complying. 

you are suffering under a popular delusion ...as is Dog. read post 372.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the reason Italy is now turning away refugee ships. Other European countries made commitments to accept them and are now reneging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Um..no it doesn't actually.

B. Safe Country of Asylum

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

12. Application of the “safe-country” concept to asylum countries poses fewer difficulties than arise with countries of origin, as long as the concept is accompanied by appropriate safeguards. In the first instance, it should be recognized that it has some basis in the phraseology of the Convention, where the Convention requires direct arrival from territories where life/freedom is threatened before a particular provision can apply (Article 31 (1)). The notion was also formally put forward in the context of the 1977 Diplomatic Conference on Territorial Asylum, when Denmark proposed that where it appeared that a person already had a connection or close links with another State, if it was reasonable and fair, (s)he should be called upon to request asylum from that State. It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.

13. Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee have also variously given credence to the notion. In this connection, Conclusion 15 (XXX) (1979), para. (h) (vi) is noteworthy:

 

“Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation”.

Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:

  • can enter and remain there,
  • is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
  • will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),
  • has access to a durable solution.

14. The application of the “safe country” concept is also generally consistent with the position, which UNHCR supports, that there should be means to identify the State responsible for examining an asylum request, so as to avoid orbit situations and multiple, simultaneous asylum requests by any one applicant. The European Community Convention on Determining the State Responsible for Examining Asylum Requests Lodged in One of the Member States (the Dublin Convention of 1990), as well as the Additional Schengen Convention relating to the suppression of frontier controls at common borders are both positive developments in this regard.

15. On the other hand, there are difficulties in applying the concept, in particular in deciding how long an individual needs to have stayed in a country and under what circumstances (Is transit sufficient?) before that country can be determined a country of first asylum. In addition, there is the problem of establishing safety (what conditions, for example, qualify as "basic human standards" and what safeguards should be accepted as sufficient to guard against possible refoulement). There may be a need, in this connection, to augment the list, in Executive Committee Conclusion No. 58, of prerequisites for return to include adherence and/or compliance with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as well as basic human rights instruments, including the U.N. Bill of Rights2. Finally there is the problem of ensuring that individual asylum seekers remain able to invoke circumstances militating against return to the "safe" country of asylum.

Conclusion

16. Overall it is UNHCR’s position that, while in principle each State Party to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol has a responsibility to examine refugee claims made to it, “burden-sharing” arrangements allowing for readmission and determination of status elsewhere are reasonable, provided they always ensure protection of refugees and solutions to their problems.

17. Without underestimating the difficulty of reaching agreement on problems such as are mentioned above (length of stay, criteria for establishing safety etc.), the answer may most reasonably lie less in unilateral efforts and more in internationally agreed arrangements which establish formal mechanisms for determining responsibility and which incorporate the “safe-country” notion but at the same time provide for clearly defined and harmonized criteria against which to measure whether countries should be considered safe. Such mechanisms can only be truly successful, in principle and in practice, if certain conditions are met, including agreement between directly concerned parties on: (a) standards of application (to whom the mechanisms apply and with respect to which countries); (b) standards of treatment (how the mechanisms shall be applied and when); (c) operational modalities (treatment of asylum-seekers, arrangements for return and readmission, eventuality of solutions); and (d) monitoring of implementation.

http://www.unhcr.org/afr/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/background-note-safe-country-concept-refugee-status.html

And could they have applied in Mexico?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's the reason Italy is now turning away refugee ships. Other European countries made commitments to accept them and are now reneging.

what reason? and are they?

Funny, I've actually seen some of these refugees in Greece last week. the UN pays for the accommodation while they are being processed in greece..their is no expectation that Greece will resettle all of them..most will move north.

But lets not muddy the waters between refugees and economic migrants again..UN rules don't apply to the latter so Mexico may move them on .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

And could they have applied in Mexico?

are they refugees or economic migrants?

if the former..the answer is yes they could..but readthis

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position

The immigration rules state, however, that the secretary of state will only remove an asylum seeker to a safe third country if there is clear evidence that the country concerned will admit the person. This will be so if the person has arrived in the UK via another safe country and had an opportunity at the border of or within that country to claim asylum. The mere fact that the person has passed through another country does not necessarily mean there was an opportunity to claim asylum; if an agent planned the journey and the person was hidden in a vehicle for the duration of it, for example, there is unlikely to have been any realistic opportunity for the person to approach the authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

are they refugees or economic migrants?

It's clearly not concern for their own safety that compels them to cross Mexico to the US what do you suppose it is?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's clearly not concern for their own safety that compels them to cross Mexico to the US what do you suppose it is?.

why do you say that? cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.  Congress can pass a law that says if you cross the border illegally with children in tow, you can just disappear with your family.

How about this - come across the border with your young children and you will be detained as a family for as many months or years as it takes to adjudicate your case and you will not live better than any family of US citizens relegated to a homeless shelter.

You and I both know a guy who's young children were ripped away from him when he broke the law and went to prison.  Should he have gotten special treatment because he had young kids?  Where were your tears for him?

It pisses me off to no end that we constantly hear about Trump,being dictatorial for enforcing laws written by Congress.

Change the fucking law that Laura's husband signed.

2nd graders can put a condom on a banana, but a high school graduate hasn't a clue about our three branches of government.

The Japanese internment camps were established via executive order from FDR, a progressive Democrat.  It did not consider US citizenship, but simply relied on heritage.  If Hispanic US citizens were subjected to anything even close, Laura Bush might have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Or concern when they send their children unaccompanied. 

what?..you're not making much sense..try reading the post and get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

OK.  Congress can pass a law that says if you cross the border illegally with children in tow, you can just disappear with your family.

How about this - come across the border with your young children and you will be detained as a family for as many months or years as it takes to adjudicate your case and you will not live better than any family of US citizens relegated to a homeless shelter.

You and I both know a guy who's young children were ripped away from him when he broke the law and went to prison.  Should he have gotten special treatment because he had young kids?  Where were your tears for him?

It pisses me off to no end that we constantly hear about Trump,being dictatorial for enforcing laws written by Congress.

Change the fucking law that Laura's husband signed.

2nd graders can put a condom on a banana, but a high school graduate hasn't a clue about our three branches of government.

The Japanese internment camps were established via executive order from FDR, a progressive Democrat.  It did not consider US citizenship, but simply relied on heritage.  If Hispanic US citizens were subjected to anything even close, Laura Bush might have a point.

um..are you talking about those claiming refugee status or economic migrants.

one has some protections under international law...see refoulment for example..the other may not.

please try to differentiate between the two because when you don't. it makes answering your questions quite tedious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites