Why Is Our Government Putting People In Cages?

[BringBackOrton]

37 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Hahahaha.

 

Don wants to be a dictator.  He’s even joked about being president for life.  

 

Keep pretending that The Donald cant end this anytime he wants.   

 

One phone call is all it takes. 

 

 

No one is doing that.

[Koko78]

'Trump is evil and must be prevented from having dictatorial powers... unless there's something that we want done, then he should use dictatorial powers to make it happen.'

 

God I love the left.

[Prickly Pete]

When the facts start catching up, "Happy Days" get cancelled. Or becomes "Joanie Loves Chachi"

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-rescued-1305-children-from-predators-youngest-7-months-old_2565515.html

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by OJ Tom
Fun

[Tiberius]

51 minutes ago, OJ Tom said:

 

You're gonna lose

Ya think? Politically I could see it helping Trump. A lot of GOPers could care less what happens to these kids as long as they are not here. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, OJ Tom said:

When the facts start catching up, "Happy Days" get cancelled. Or becomes "Joanie Loves Chachi"

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-rescued-1305-children-from-predators-youngest-7-months-old_2565515.html

 

 

 

Ha ha ha, I see some of the other stories on that website, Why Mueller in Unconstitutional, How the FBI spied on Trump. 

 

Dont link to sites that spread Trumps lies, please 

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Hahahaha.

 

Don wants to be a dictator.  He’s even joked about being president for life.  

 

Keep pretending that The Donald cant end this anytime he wants.   

 

One phone call is all it takes. 

 

 

obama was a dictator - sending pallets of cash over to iran in the middle of the night

with no concessions. give me a break. Trump is a law and order guy, how many times

does it have to be repeated, the law breakers should stop bringing their children here

breaking the law. dims should try to get the law changed not encourage others to break

 them.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

41 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And you're okay with that????

 

THAT'S THE GODDAMN PROBLEM.

You have said it a number of times. Don loves a good shitshow 

 

hes getting a lot lot of attention 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Albwan said:

obama was a dictator - sending pallets of cash over to iran in the middle of the night

with no concessions. give me a break. Trump is a law and order guy, how many times

does it have to be repeated, the law breakers should stop bringing their children here

breaking the law. dims should try to get the law changed not encourage others to break

 them.

 

Which is why the left hates him.  They want rule by executive fiat, not the rule of law.  

 

Because it's the only way they can get their way.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 minutes ago, Albwan said:

obama was a dictator - sending pallets of cash over to iran in the middle of the night

with no concessions. give me a break. Trump is a law and order guy, how many times

does it have to be repeated, the law breakers should stop bringing their children here

breaking the law. dims should try to get the law changed not encourage others to break

 them.

Obama is history.   

 

This is the Donald’s show.  

 

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Which is why the left hates him.  They want rule by executive fiat, not the rule of law.  

 

Because it's the only way they can get their way.

Don wants the Dems to side with him to pay for the wall Mexico is supposed to pay for. 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Don wants the Dems to side with him to pay for the wall Mexico is supposed to pay for. 

 

No, he couldn't care less if they side with him.  I'm not even sure he wants them to cave.  He may just want them to focus on that so that in their stark raving lunacy they don't pay attention to anything else he's doing.

 

 

[B-Man]

The Truth about Separating Kids

By Rich Lowrey

 

The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

 

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

 

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

 

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

 

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

 

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

 

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

 

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

 

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

 

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

 

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

 

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

 

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.

 

{snip}

 

A few points about all this:

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).

 

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.

 

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

 

In April, the New York Times reported:

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”

 

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

 

The situation is a lousy, unfair one and it needs to be addressed, but it certainly isn't helped by the opportunistic, hypocritical positions demonstrated so aptly by the lefty lemmings on this board.

 

 

 

.

[PearlHowardman]

Reunite the children with their parents/guardians.

 

Then immediately deport them back to where they illegally came from.

 

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The Truth about Separating Kids

By Rich Lowrey

 

The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

 

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

 

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

 

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

 

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

 

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

 

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

 

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

 

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

 

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

 

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

 

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

 

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.

 

{snip}

 

A few points about all this:

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).

 

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.

 

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

 

In April, the New York Times reported:

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”

 

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

 

The situation is a lousy, unfair one and it needs to be addressed, but it certainly isn't helped by the opportunistic, hypocritical positions demonstrated so aptly by the lefty lemmings on this board.

 

 

 

.

Finally, the Truth!  B-Mans truth, lol 

[B-Man]

THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPARATING KIDS AT THE BORDER, PART TWO

 

John and I have written about the separation of adult illegal immigrants from the children they unlawfully bring with them into this country. I want to direct attention to two articles on the subject that make additional points.

 

Jason Jones and John Zmirak argue that the Mexican government created the problem:

These migrants from Central America claim that the chaos in their home countries amounts to “persecution.” If so, then by international law they must seek refuge in the “first safe country.” That was Mexico, which didn’t offer them asylum, but shipped them north to us.

They also note the recklessness of adults who bring their children from Central America through Mexico:

The Huffington Post reported that 80% of women and girls from Central America who enter the U.S. illegally suffer rape.

If the percentage even remotely approaches that number, then almost anything we can do to discourage immigrants from bringing children through Mexico is worthwhile.

Jones and Zmirak also place the issue of separation at the border in the context of sex trafficking:

Every year thousands of children get raped, abused, and sold. Right here in America. Many of these kids are immigrants, and a key tactic traffickers use is to pretend that they are their parents.

 

(Emphasis added)

 

Daniel Horowitz picks up on this theme, as well as the matter of drugs and gang violence:

We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement. We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free. This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border.

Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy.

 

Horowitz argues that DACA created the surge of children into the U.S. And why not? The prospect of amnesty must be enormously enticing.

 

This surge of teenage illegal immigrants, in turn, fueled the drug and gang crises. Ironically, gangs like MS-13 create the hellish enclaves that are said to cause immigrants to flee Central America.

 

Horowitz concludes:

If you truly feel bad about separating families of both illegal aliens and Americans and all the chain reaction of woe it brings, you’d support automatic and immediate denial of entry and deportation for families – together.

 

President Trump needs to use his inherent Article II powers to stop entry as well as his delegated authority from Congress under 212(f) of the INA. He needs to announce that because of the drug crisis, nobody will be allowed to enter our country under asylum through the border because it does nothing but empower the drug cartels. All applications must be filed in a U.S. embassy in a safe and controlled environment.

 

That’s the humane thing to do. However, it’s inconsistent with the agenda of Democratic politicians and the open-borders left.

[The_Dude]

On 6/15/2018 at 1:56 PM, Tiberius said:

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents

 

F'n barbaric 

********

 

Quoted from Jennifer Rubin at Washington post 

 

 

K, so here’s the thing — Machiavelli wasn’t wrong. There’s an argument to be made for mass killings which Machiavelli made. During Machiavelli’s day things were different. It was better for a ruler to kill the children’s of his enemies when assuming power to avert a costly future war. It was good business then no matter how ugly it was. 

So, what’s better for our nation...humanely and continually dealing with invaders at great effort and expense of our government, or treating them so inhumanely for a short period that a lasting consequence is that the invaders become too shell shocked to try it again? What’s the better option for America in the long run? Again, I’m not advocating for this, but let’s not be pussies and pretend it isn’t a legitimate question to ponder. 

Now think of this — let’s say the Border Patrol gets shoot on sight orders....I promise after one month they’ll stop trying to cross the border the way I promise you won’t touch a red stove eye twice. And the cost savings for the country that this would create.......

Because I’ll say this — it would have been better for Rome and humanity to set up a trap and kill every Goth man, woman, and child that was force migrated into the Empire due to the Huns. Sadly the Romans didn’t commit this act of genocide. They should have.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

K, so here’s the thing — Machiavelli wasn’t wrong. There’s an argument to be made for mass killings which Machiavelli made. During Machiavelli’s day things were different. It was better for a ruler to kill the children’s of his enemies when assuming power to avert a costly future war. It was good business then no matter how ugly it was. 

So, what’s better for our nation...humanely and continually dealing with invaders at great effort and expense of our government, or treating them so inhumanely for a short period that a lasting consequence is that the invaders become too shell shocked to try it again? What’s the better option for America in the long run? Again, I’m not advocating for this, but let’s not be pussies and pretend it isn’t a legitimate question to ponder. 

Now think of this — let’s say the Border Patrol gets shoot on sight orders....I promise after one month they’ll stop trying to cross the border the way I promise you won’t touch a red stove eye twice. And the cost savings for the country that this would create.......

Because I’ll say this — it would have been better for Rome and humanity to set up a trap and kill every Goth man, woman, and child that was force migrated into the Empire due to the Huns. Sadly the Romans didn’t commit this act of genocide. They should have.

Nah, Rome should have founded universities, ended slavery and improved their agriculture, and then they would have been fine. 

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Nah, Rome should have founded universities, ended slavery and improved their agriculture, and then they would have been fine. 

...Roman slavery was in its latter day pretty humane. Also, I was just illustrating a point that what the heart wants isn’t always what best for the body. There’s validity to points, which if you will remember I’m not expressly advocating for. I’m just saying that if this country was more Machiavellian it wouldn’t find itself in the same messes it continually does. 

[B-Man]

“If my Democratic colleagues will join me, not play politics but work to solve the problem, we can start to end family separation this week. And, we can honor the rule of law.”

 

 

Sen. Ted Cruz has put forward his legislation,

 

What’s inside Sen. Cruz emergency legislation to prevent immigrant child separation?

 

 

 

 

I would also strongly encourage those with real interest in this problem to go back to the last page and check the two articles that I posted there, amongst the blathering of the lemmings.

 

 

 

.

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

“If my Democratic colleagues will join me, not play politics but work to solve the problem, we can start to end family separation this week. And, we can honor the rule of law.”

 

 

The left is much happier recording the sounds of crying children and pointing at who is to blame LONG before they will ever be interested in a solution.

 

They have no desire to fix anytthing but the mid-terms. They only have a desire to create an enemy.

 

And Trumps is playing them like cheap fiddles through the entire thing.

 

It's pretty damn funny. They keep thinking this is the right play, and they keep losing day after day after day.

 

[B-Man]

A CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSIONER WEIGHS IN ON CHILDREN AT THE BORDER

On Friday, U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on the subject of separating families who enter the country illegally at the southern border. Peter’s letter is as clear an explanation of the issue as I have seen. It is so cogent that I am duplicating it here

 

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Nielsen:

 

I write as one member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and not on behalf of the Commission as a whole. The majority of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has issued a statement condemning the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security for separating parents and children who cross the border illegally.1 The reason parents and children are separated is the law: When an adult illegal alien is prosecuted for unlawful entry, that person is taken into the custody of the U.S. Marshals and the children are taken into custody by HHS. Nonetheless, unless the adult applies for asylum, the unlawful entry is resolved relatively quickly and the separation is brief. But if the adult applies for asylum, the process–-and separation–is lengthier. That is because the 1997 Flores Consent Decree (and the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation thereof) stipulates that children may be held no more than twenty days. The asylum process is much longer.

 

If the U.S. were detaining the children with their parents, the Commission majority would surely issue a statement condemning the Departments for detaining children. Thus, the only way to avoid separating children from illegal alien parents that would be acceptable to the Commission majority would be to release both parents and children into the U.S., contrary to law. The bottom line is that the Commission majority is opposed to enforcing almost any immigration laws pertaining to illegal entry.

People who have potentially valid claims for asylum can present themselves at ports of entry and request asylum. They will be processed normally and will not be separated from their children because they are following the law.2

 

It is unwise to release detained individuals into the United States, because they are then very likely to abscond into the interior and fail to appear for their immigration hearing. “Over the past 20 years, 37 percent of all aliens free pending their trials – 918,098 out of 2,498,375 – never showed for court.”3 (Aliens who are detained are almost certain to appear at court, because they do not have the ability to abscond). And individuals who have claimed asylum also are likely to fail to appear for their court proceedings – “[o]n average, 46,000 people each year vanished from proceedings created specifically for those claiming persecution in the lands they called home.”4 This suggests that quite a few of these claims are weak, if not false, and that the individual’s goal was simply to make it into the United States and then disappear.

 

Separating children from their parents is regrettable. It is not, however, unique. American parents are separated from their children every day when they are arrested or incarcerated. According to HHS, during Fiscal Year 2016, 20,939 American children entered foster care because their parent is incarcerated.5 This is more than ten times the number of children who have been separated from their parents due to entering the United States illegally.6 People who cross the border illegally have committed a crime, and one of the consequences of being arrested and detained is, unfortunately, that their children cannot stay with them.

 

Among the principal reasons people immigrate to this country is the primacy we give to the rule of law and the benefits that flow therefrom. Despite what my colleagues seem to think, there is no super-statute that decrees that aliens must be treated better than Americans. If Congress decides to change the law, that is its prerogative. But until such time as Congress changes the law, the Department of Justice should continue enforcing existing law and prosecute every case of illegal entry.

 

Sincerely,

Peter Kirsanow Commissioner

[Prickly Pete]

The real solution is..

 

Go to war with the Mexican government (cough..cartels), purge the institutions of corrupt officials, and install an occupation government.

 

I'm not sure it would work, but I can't think of any other way to end the shitholeness of Mexico.

 

I'm open to other ideas.