How far will Trump go? Child Abuse Edition.
alex4855 said:
Nope. Not how it happened at all. Unfortunately, you just didn't just leave Fidel's Cuba when the spotlight was on your family and Cuban American's are celebrating the rescue of a floating infant whose mother drowned en route. I gather by your thinking Fidel would have allowed the father to remain in the USA and his family in Cuba left alone- well, just because. Really? Unless you understand the comite de cuadra, the Fidel tyranny that led to this, you will never accept the reality of what happened. If his mother had made it, a different situation perhaps- I grant you that. To cite my source would be too obvious. There is a lot more to this tragedy.
Great that you are pro-immigration for people fleeing violence and tyranny.
dave23 said:
alex4855 said:Great that you are pro-immigration for people fleeing violence and tyranny.
Nope. Not how it happened at all. Unfortunately, you just didn't just leave Fidel's Cuba when the spotlight was on your family and Cuban American's are celebrating the rescue of a floating infant whose mother drowned en route. I gather by your thinking Fidel would have allowed the father to remain in the USA and his family in Cuba left alone- well, just because. Really? Unless you understand the comite de cuadra, the Fidel tyranny that led to this, you will never accept the reality of what happened. If his mother had made it, a different situation perhaps- I grant you that. To cite my source would be too obvious. There is a lot more to this tragedy.
No- that's not quite correct. Pro asylum for those whose life issue meet the criteria. Pro legal immigration as per our laws. Immigration and asylum are two totally different matters.
Good point. I wish Trump could tell the difference. Lots if kids whose parents sought asylum have been taken by the government.
dave23 said:
Good point. I wish Trump could tell the difference. Lots if kids whose parents sought asylum have b-fleen taken by the government.
Actually, Trump is telling the difference. These people have entered USA sovereignty illegally, then requested asylum. The law is specific. Change the law, change the procedure. Clearly, they were poorly coached, and the great, great majority of these cases are being declined.
alex4855 said:
dave23 said:Actually, Trump is telling the difference. These people have entered USA sovereignty illegally, then requested asylum. The law is specific. Change the law, change the procedure. Clearly, they were poorly coached, and the great, great majority of these cases are being declined.
Good point. I wish Trump could tell the difference. Lots if kids whose parents sought asylum have b-fleen taken by the government.
The law does not say anything about separating kids from their parents. That was a purely vindictive and racist decision because Trump considers them animals who will infest the country.
dave23 said:
alex4855 said:The law does not say anything about separating kids from their parents. That was a purely vindictive and racist decision because Trump considers them animals who will infest the country.
dave23 said:Actually, Trump is telling the difference. These people have entered USA sovereignty illegally, then requested asylum. The law is specific. Change the law, change the procedure. Clearly, they were poorly coached, and the great, great majority of these cases are being declined.
Good point. I wish Trump could tell the difference. Lots if kids whose parents sought asylum have b-fleen taken by the government.
Subtitle E of Public Law 107-296 - The loopholes allow for the wide implementation of policy. Tighten the law- close the loopholes. Claiming its a vindictive, racist decision throws a convenient blind eye to the source of this real problem and discounts the complexities involved.
“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.”
― Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto
alex4855 said:
Actually, Trump is telling the difference. These people have entered USA sovereignty illegally, then requested asylum. The law is specific. Change the law, change the procedure. Clearly, they were poorly coached, and the great, great majority of these cases are being declined.
This has been posted more than once. Did you somehow miss this?
8 USC 1158 a 1
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
They entered and requested asylum, which per above law they are entitled to do. So what is your issue?
Should we should lock them and their children up while asylum applications are processed?
Should we just disregard the above law and summarily kick them out as Trump wants? That is, deprive them due process because they may be here illegally or because they are not citizens.
Our constitution says everyone gets due process. It says "No person" may be deprived. Hey, but maybe we can do the Nazi thing, classify them as non-persons. Which is exactly what Trump is attempting with his "rapist, murderers, animals, invaders" comments.
We can just pick and choose to follow the parts of the constitution we like.
alex4855 said:Subtitle E of Public Law 107-296 - The loopholes allow for the wide implementation of policy. Tighten the law- close the loopholes. Claiming its a vindictive, racist decision throws a convenient blind eye to the source of this real problem and discounts the complexities involved.
“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.”
― Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto
I'm all for closing the loopholes that allow Trump and his acolytes to stop his racist campaign. Just because they are brown doesn't mean they ought not be treated with dignity. The president called them animals and said they'd "infest" our country. I'm sure that that appeals to you, but it's not what this country should be doing.
Sessions made a nice little speech attacking people who oppose the policy and joked about child separation, which got a nice laugh. Little kids in "tender age" camps is hilarious, after all.
alex4855 said:
drummerboy said:lol.
Time to #AbolishICE
Oh, so you're a fan of the US version of the gestapo huh?
alex4855 said:
Nope. Not how it happened at all. Unfortunately, you just didn't just leave Fidel's Cuba when the spotlight was on your family and Cuban American's are celebrating the rescue of a floating infant whose mother drowned en route. I gather by your thinking Fidel would have allowed the father to remain in the USA and his family in Cuba left alone- well, just because. Really? Unless you understand the comite de cuadra, the Fidel tyranny that led to this, you will never accept the reality of what happened. If his mother had made it, a different situation perhaps- I grant you that. To cite my source would be too obvious. There is a lot more to this tragedy.
How could Fidel have prevented the family from staying in the U..S.?
If it was by threatening family members in Cuba, would that not have happened if the mother and son and others in the boat made it to Florida?
Do you have any example of a Cuban refugee to the US being forced to return to Cuba?
This recent policy was too extreme but incentives and policies matter and affect the result. They are not coming because of political prosecution or war. They are coming because our economy is strong. They are coming because of relatively better living standards. Our government provided healthcare/welfare, educational system, and the spirit of the Constitution were originally intended to make the nation strong. It was and is self interest. Is it a good idea to provide incentive and a fast track on immigration to thousands of poor people with no skills, no money, no documentation when there are thousands more immigrants with all that waiting in line to add positively to our country?
abernethy said:
This recent policy was too extreme but incentives and policies matter and affect the result. They are not coming because of political prosecution or war. They are coming because our economy is strong. They are coming because of relatively better living standards. Our government provided healthcare/welfare, educational system, and the spirit of the Constitution were originally intended to make the nation strong. It was and is self interest. Is it a good idea to provide incentive and a fast track on immigration to thousands of poor people with no skills, no money, no documentation when there are thousands more immigrants with all that waiting in line to add positively to our country?
Total horse-pucky...
BG9 said:
alex4855 said:This has been posted more than once. Did you somehow miss this?
Actually, Trump is telling the difference. These people have entered USA sovereignty illegally, then requested asylum. The law is specific. Change the law, change the procedure. Clearly, they were poorly coached, and the great, great majority of these cases are being declined.
8 USC 1158 a 1They entered and requested asylum, which per above law they are entitled to do. So what is your issue?
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
Should we should lock them and their children up while asylum applications are processed?
Should we just disregard the above law and summarily kick them out as Trump wants? That is, deprive them due process because they may be here illegally or because they are not citizens.
Our constitution says everyone gets due process. It says "No person" may be deprived. Hey, but maybe we can do the Nazi thing, classify them as non-persons. Which is exactly what Trump is attempting with his "rapist, murderers, animals, invaders" comments.
We can just pick and choose to follow the parts of the constitution we like.
The determination is not mine to make, however, I would prefer the families remain together. As you most likely know, the very great majority of these filings are rejected for lack of credible evidence, and the filers deported. Perhaps one solution would be for people concerned with the process (perhaps you might be such a person) to apply and request to take a family in, provide them shelter and sanctuary, and become responsible and liable for their presence while the case is reviewed. Until such time, the family would be together and you will have done something to solve the issue and create meaningful change.
The conditions that give credence to asylum claims are well documented. I wonder where and how an abused inner city family, fearing for their lives, subject to drug and gang warfare and trafficking in their neighborhoods- how do they approach an asylum request?
abernethy said:
This recent policy was too extreme but incentives and policies matter and affect the result. They are not coming because of political prosecution or war. They are coming because our economy is strong. They are coming because of relatively better living standards. Our government provided healthcare/welfare, educational system, and the spirit of the Constitution were originally intended to make the nation strong. It was and is self interest. Is it a good idea to provide incentive and a fast track on immigration to thousands of poor people with no skills, no money, no documentation when there are thousands more immigrants with all that waiting in line to add positively to our country?
Many are fleeing gang wars and associated violence. They may not be "traditional" wars but should we prioritize Syrian refugees who are fleeing an actual War?
As to "poor people with no skills, no money" those were the type of immigrants who traditionally came to this country. Was it a mistake to admit the Irish or the Italians.
I think that you and I have two different visions of America.
LOST said:
abernethy said:Many are fleeing gang wars and associated violence. They may not be "traditional" wars but should we prioritize Syrian refugees who are fleeing an actual War?
This recent policy was too extreme but incentives and policies matter and affect the result. They are not coming because of political prosecution or war. They are coming because our economy is strong. They are coming because of relatively better living standards. Our government provided healthcare/welfare, educational system, and the spirit of the Constitution were originally intended to make the nation strong. It was and is self interest. Is it a good idea to provide incentive and a fast track on immigration to thousands of poor people with no skills, no money, no documentation when there are thousands more immigrants with all that waiting in line to add positively to our country?
As to "poor people with no skills, no money" those were the type of immigrants who traditionally came to this country. Was it a mistake to admit the Irish or the Italians.
I think that you and I have two different visions of America.
Hey- if you have nothing to do one evening, I can take you to the land of Newark, to a part of that city where families are caught in gang battles and wars every day, where their kids are subject to pressure and physical harm from thugs like MS13, where the families are separated because one of the parents is in jail, where economic conditions are despicable and the police refuse to enter. Its a virtual war zone. That is a real vision of part of America, a few miles from Maplehood. Stop a police officer in town- get informed. No asylum / no family preservation here. Its a hypocritical argument-mostly from champagne limousine liberals who have nothing else to do but point the finger - never at the mirror.
alex4855 said:
The determination is not mine to make, however, I would prefer the families remain together. As you most likely know, the very great majority of these filings are rejected for lack of credible evidence, and the filers deported.
I do love the passive role you suddenly stake out.
Re denial rates: They had been hovering just over 50% for about a decade (hardly a "great majority"), but have been going up as asylum seekers have not been able to secure representation and cannot navigate the system on their own. I expect the rate to continue to go up as they are too brown for the current leadership.
dave23 said:
alex4855 said:I do love the passive role you suddenly stake out.
The determination is not mine to make, however, I would prefer the families remain together. As you most likely know, the very great majority of these filings are rejected for lack of credible evidence, and the filers deported.
Re denial rates: They had been hovering just over 50% for about a decade (hardly a "great majority"), but have been going up as asylum seekers have not been able to secure representation and cannot navigate the system on their own. I expect the rate to continue to go up as they are too brown for the current leadership.
First, get clear information. Notice the increase over the past 5 years including those of President Obama.
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/
The constant reference to color is lame, a turn to an argument that doesn't cut it.
It's ironic that someone who is adamant about the rule of law, can support someone who skirts the law for financial gain.
alex4855 said:
dave23 said:First, get clear information. Notice the increase over the past 5 years including those of President Obama.
alex4855 said:I do love the passive role you suddenly stake out.
The determination is not mine to make, however, I would prefer the families remain together. As you most likely know, the very great majority of these filings are rejected for lack of credible evidence, and the filers deported.
Re denial rates: They had been hovering just over 50% for about a decade (hardly a "great majority"), but have been going up as asylum seekers have not been able to secure representation and cannot navigate the system on their own. I expect the rate to continue to go up as they are too brown for the current leadership.
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/
The constant reference to color is lame, a turn to an argument that doesn't cut it.
do you know how to read bar charts?
LOST said:
alex4855 said:How could Fidel have prevented the family from staying in the U..S.?
Nope. Not how it happened at all. Unfortunately, you just didn't just leave Fidel's Cuba when the spotlight was on your family and Cuban American's are celebrating the rescue of a floating infant whose mother drowned en route. I gather by your thinking Fidel would have allowed the father to remain in the USA and his family in Cuba left alone- well, just because. Really? Unless you understand the comite de cuadra, the Fidel tyranny that led to this, you will never accept the reality of what happened. If his mother had made it, a different situation perhaps- I grant you that. To cite my source would be too obvious. There is a lot more to this tragedy.
If it was by threatening family members in Cuba, would that not have happened if the mother and son and others in the boat made it to Florida?
Do you have any example of a Cuban refugee to the US being forced to return to Cuba?
Elian Gonzalez... omg. You can't be serious. Amazing.
drummerboy said:
alex4855 said:do you know how to read bar charts?
dave23 said:First, get clear information. Notice the increase over the past 5 years including those of President Obama.
alex4855 said:I do love the passive role you suddenly stake out.
The determination is not mine to make, however, I would prefer the families remain together. As you most likely know, the very great majority of these filings are rejected for lack of credible evidence, and the filers deported.
Re denial rates: They had been hovering just over 50% for about a decade (hardly a "great majority"), but have been going up as asylum seekers have not been able to secure representation and cannot navigate the system on their own. I expect the rate to continue to go up as they are too brown for the current leadership.
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/
The constant reference to color is lame, a turn to an argument that doesn't cut it.
English..
can you read the first paragraph>?
alex4855 said:First, get clear information. Notice the increase over the past 5 years including those of President Obama.
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/
The constant reference to color is lame, a turn to an argument that doesn't cut it.
Like I said, it's been hovering just above 50% for about 10 years and the article confirms that. So thanks!
I didn't say anything about Obama, but I guess he's good to bring up because, you know, it's easier than admitting to lying or being wrong. (But yes, it did increase under Obama and puts to rest (just kidding, we know you guys love his lies so he'll keep telling them) another Trump lie about Obama's "open borders.")
The article also confirms my point that denials went up because of lack of representation. Thanks again! (I know truth doesn't matter to you Trumpists, but hey, what the heck.)
alex4855 said:
drummerboy said:English..
alex4855 said:do you know how to read bar charts?
dave23 said:First, get clear information. Notice the increase over the past 5 years including those of President Obama.
alex4855 said:I do love the passive role you suddenly stake out.
The determination is not mine to make, however, I would prefer the families remain together. As you most likely know, the very great majority of these filings are rejected for lack of credible evidence, and the filers deported.
Re denial rates: They had been hovering just over 50% for about a decade (hardly a "great majority"), but have been going up as asylum seekers have not been able to secure representation and cannot navigate the system on their own. I expect the rate to continue to go up as they are too brown for the current leadership.
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/
The constant reference to color is lame, a turn to an argument that doesn't cut it.
can you read the first paragraph>?
Hopefully you read more than that. The link you posted appears to prove dave23's point that the rise in asylum denial correlates with lack of representation.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Nope. Not how it happened at all. Unfortunately, you just didn't just leave Fidel's Cuba when the spotlight was on your family and Cuban American's are celebrating the rescue of a floating infant whose mother drowned en route. I gather by your thinking Fidel would have allowed the father to remain in the USA and his family in Cuba left alone- well, just because. Really? Unless you understand the comite de cuadra, the Fidel tyranny that led to this, you will never accept the reality of what happened. If his mother had made it, a different situation perhaps- I grant you that. To cite my source would be too obvious. There is a lot more to this tragedy.