Celtics Blog Forums

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: mqtcelticsfan on June 18, 2018, 01:34:07 AM

Title: Stephen Miller
Post by: mqtcelticsfan on June 18, 2018, 01:34:07 AM
I generally try to avoid being particularly inflammatory when it comes to politics, as I think it shuts down necessary dialogue. With that being said, I cannot help myself when it comes to Stephen Miller. This man is an absolute ghoul, and it’s endlessly depressing that such an awful human is in a position of influence.

When I first read about the issue going on with families being separated, my first thought was how Miller factored into this. Lo and behold, it’s since come out that Miller was a key player, and is openly proud of the policy. If news comes out that sounds cruel, heartless or tone deaf, it’s a near certainty that Miller had his hands in the decision making. I cannot wait until this demon of a man is out of the federal government.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 02:02:13 AM
I completely agree. I try very much to avoid calling someone “evil.”  But Stephen Miller is evil.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 06:26:35 AM
He’s creepy as heck.

The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Celtics4ever on June 18, 2018, 06:42:14 AM
It's far better treatment than you or I would get if we broke the law in Mexico.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/mexico-us-marine-detained/index.html


It is heartless definitely and bad optics for the world.  Most all of us don't it.

But here in the USA we often take away children who are put at risk by their parents.   These kids have been walked through the desert, placed in uncooled trailers, basically smuggled as human cargo, and exposed to areas where human trafficking is commonplace.    Do you think their parents placed them at risk?   I do. 

How is this any different than the Department of Human Services taking away a kid that was left in a hot car?  Do you think that is bad and this is not?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 06:58:30 AM
He’s creepy as heck.

The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.

It’s actually about denying people with legitimate asylum claims from entering the country at manned border crossings, where they could legally make their asylum claim upon setting a single foot in the country.  This forces them to cross at other non-manned points of entry, whereupon they are charged with an illegal border crossing.  There they are arrested.  That’s entrapment, not law enforcement.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 07:14:42 AM
He’s creepy as heck.

The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.

It’s actually about denying people with legitimate asylum claims from entering the country at manned border crossings, where they could legally make their asylum claim upon setting a single foot in the country.  This forces them to cross at other non-manned points of entry, whereupon they are charged with an illegal border crossing.  There they are arrested.  That’s entrapment, not law enforcement.

Entrapment? Nobody is forcing these people to illegally enter our country.  They’ve got every right to apply to enter our country.  Instead, they illegally sneak in.  Getting separated from their families is the risk they’re taking by breaking the law.

Several thousands of illegal entrants have been detained in recent months. It can’t continue unabated.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: eja117 on June 18, 2018, 07:17:19 AM
To be fair our country and society is pretty freaky now. He is a very freaky response to some other freaky stuff.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 18, 2018, 07:34:54 AM
The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents. For all practical purposes, it's cruel and unusual punishment.

It's far better treatment than you or I would get if we broke the law in Mexico.
I've always found this line of argument fascinating. Some countries stone people to death. Should we do that too?

This is about the United States, not about Mexico; there is no reason we should hold ourselves to other places' low(er) standards.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 07:43:40 AM
He’s creepy as heck.

The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.

It’s actually about denying people with legitimate asylum claims from entering the country at manned border crossings, where they could legally make their asylum claim upon setting a single foot in the country.  This forces them to cross at other non-manned points of entry, whereupon they are charged with an illegal border crossing.  There they are arrested.  That’s entrapment, not law enforcement.

Entrapment? Nobody is forcing these people to illegally enter our country.  They’ve got every right to apply to enter our country.  Instead, they illegally sneak in.  Getting separated from their families is the risk they’re taking by breaking the law.

Several thousands of illegal entrants have been detained in recent months. It can’t continue unabated.

Do you know how the asylum process works?  As in, how you apply for asylum?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 07:49:11 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Celtics4ever on June 18, 2018, 07:51:22 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents. For all practical purposes, it's cruel and unusual punishment.

And our Social Service Agencies do it all the time for child endangerment how is walking your kid across a desert any different?   Do you care about that? 

Quote
I've always found this line of argument fascinating. Some countries stone people to death. Should we do that too?

This is about the United States, not about Mexico; there is no reason we should hold ourselves to other places' low(er) standards.

No, to stoning but face it the reason we have a huge problem in this area is because our laws are a little lax.   Enforcing our existing laws is my standard and the standard I think we should embrace.  Right now this is the law of the land.

Quote
Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of a new “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry

I still think it's terrible to separate families but we do it all the time here and no one blinks an eye.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 07:58:26 AM
He’s creepy as heck.

The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.

It’s actually about denying people with legitimate asylum claims from entering the country at manned border crossings, where they could legally make their asylum claim upon setting a single foot in the country.  This forces them to cross at other non-manned points of entry, whereupon they are charged with an illegal border crossing.  There they are arrested.  That’s entrapment, not law enforcement.

Entrapment? Nobody is forcing these people to illegally enter our country.  They’ve got every right to apply to enter our country.  Instead, they illegally sneak in.  Getting separated from their families is the risk they’re taking by breaking the law.

Several thousands of illegal entrants have been detained in recent months. It can’t continue unabated.

Do you know how the asylum process works?  As in, how you apply for asylum?

The asylum process is being abused. During Obama’s administration, something like only 9% of Mexican asylum claims were granted. The current administration isn’t buying into that charade.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: eja117 on June 18, 2018, 08:20:18 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: td450 on June 18, 2018, 08:28:17 AM
It's far better treatment than you or I would get if we broke the law in Mexico.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/mexico-us-marine-detained/index.html


It is heartless definitely and bad optics for the world.  Most all of us don't it.

But here in the USA we often take away children who are put at risk by their parents.   These kids have been walked through the desert, placed in uncooled trailers, basically smuggled as human cargo, and exposed to areas where human trafficking is commonplace.    Do you think their parents placed them at risk?   I do. 

How is this any different than the Department of Human Services taking away a kid that was left in a hot car?  Do you think that is bad and this is not?
The difference is that in one case, a desperate family takes a risk together to give themselves a chance at a better life (a strategy that has often worked), while in the case of the hot car, a parent exposes their kid to dangerous conditions for no reason at all except neglect and stupidity.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Ed Hollison on June 18, 2018, 08:29:19 AM
Many of the people being separated from their children are not law breakers. They are asylum seekers.

Quote
[T]here have been reports of people arriving at the ports of entry asking for asylum and being taken into custody, and some of the designated ports are not accepting asylum claims. In those cases, migrants sometimes cross wherever they can and, because it is not an official border station, are detained even though they are making a claim of asylum. Many would-be asylum applicants do not know where official ports of entry are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/politics/melania-trump-family-separation.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 08:29:33 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: eja117 on June 18, 2018, 08:36:37 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.
So the kids will be taken and put in a detention center for weeks or months? Where they largely don't get to go outside. Those largely strike me as violent misdemeanors.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: td450 on June 18, 2018, 09:19:31 AM
He’s creepy as heck.

The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.

It’s actually about denying people with legitimate asylum claims from entering the country at manned border crossings, where they could legally make their asylum claim upon setting a single foot in the country.  This forces them to cross at other non-manned points of entry, whereupon they are charged with an illegal border crossing.  There they are arrested.  That’s entrapment, not law enforcement.

Entrapment? Nobody is forcing these people to illegally enter our country.  They’ve got every right to apply to enter our country.  Instead, they illegally sneak in.  Getting separated from their families is the risk they’re taking by breaking the law.

Several thousands of illegal entrants have been detained in recent months. It can’t continue unabated.

We can handle this any way we want. If we choose to view it the same as certain domestic offenses and separate parents from children, that is a choice, not a necessity.

If we choose, it can continue unabated. It is a crisis only if we define it that way. Illegal immigration causes some significant problems, but stopping illegal immigration causes significant problems too. Maintaining a reasonably humane set of enforcement policies will not destroy our country.

There is a reason that illegal immigration has never been fully dealt with. The only way to stop it is to be something most of us don't want to be. It is a lie to say we can't just live with a humane compromise if we want to. We've had decades of experience which says otherwise.


Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 18, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
This is less about immigration as it is about Trump’s promotion of white nationalism. Just look at the comments he made today about Germany practically urging nationalists in that country to overtake current leadership. Comments like this validate these groups around the world as do his actions.

Miller is a a fascist and poster boy for the white supremacy movement in this country.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 09:47:34 AM
He’s creepy as heck.

The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.

It’s actually about denying people with legitimate asylum claims from entering the country at manned border crossings, where they could legally make their asylum claim upon setting a single foot in the country.  This forces them to cross at other non-manned points of entry, whereupon they are charged with an illegal border crossing.  There they are arrested.  That’s entrapment, not law enforcement.

Entrapment? Nobody is forcing these people to illegally enter our country.  They’ve got every right to apply to enter our country.  Instead, they illegally sneak in.  Getting separated from their families is the risk they’re taking by breaking the law.

Several thousands of illegal entrants have been detained in recent months. It can’t continue unabated.

Do you know how the asylum process works?  As in, how you apply for asylum?

The asylum process is being abused. During Obama’s administration, something like only 9% of Mexican asylum claims were granted. The current administration isn’t buying into that charade.

I didn’t ask your opinions about the asylum process, and that’s not your argument.  You said “It’s law enforcement.”  And you argue that they are “illegally entering.”

Again, people are going to border checkpoints to present themselves for asylum, and are being turned away from doing so.  This is not “law enforcement.”  From US Customs and Immigration Services:

“Who is Eligible to Apply for Asylum?”

Quote
You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status and within one year of your arrival to the United States.
(emphasis added)

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications (https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications)

Denying people asylum at checkpoints is a deviation from what the law requires, past precedent, and the government’s publicly stated policy.  Unable to formally present their asylum claims at a legal checkpoint, they then cross the river (which still allows them to legally request asylum).  But now we’ve forced them into a criminal action, giving us an excuse to arrest them and separate them from their children.

This is not about law enforcement.  This is about testing their legal authorities.  Those are not the same thing.

It’s also barbaric and unnecessary.  And as it’s creating psychological trauma for children, including very young children, it is frankly evil.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 18, 2018, 09:50:54 AM
The border separation policy is an entirely different debate. It’s emotion versus law enforcement.
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents. For all practical purposes, it's cruel and unusual punishment.


It's quite literally child abuse as government policy, seemingly for no other reason than political leverage and performative cruelty toward demonized outgroups. Fortunately the base has no lack of lack of empathy, as we see here and elsewhere.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Vermont Green on June 18, 2018, 10:29:18 AM
This is just an attempt by Trump to divide the country further and create chaos that he then uses to consolidate the base.  Just look at the arguments here.  Some people are getting sucked into trying to defend people abusing asylum rules because they hate the site of families being separated.  Others are defending a policy that separates families because they hate to see asylum abused.

This is just like the kneeling/anthem thing.  Creating a heated, emotional debate when most everyone would otherwise agree.  We should defend our boarder against illegal immigration.  Asylum should be a process that is available.  Asylum seekers should not be forced to give up their children.

This never gets solved with the "republicans want to separate families", "democrats want open boarders" kinds of narratives.  Trump is at fault here.  Carrying out the Russian plan to foster dissent.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 18, 2018, 10:51:09 AM
We can handle this any way we want. If we choose to view it the same as certain domestic offenses and separate parents from children, that is a choice, not a necessity.
Of course we can. I'll just leave a little something here that someone else came up with:

"When you see caged children and your first question is, 'But did they come here illegally' we don't have a difference in political opinion. We have a difference in morality".
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: mqtcelticsfan on June 18, 2018, 10:57:03 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.

Surely you see the difference between these crimes and illegal border crossing. At least in this case, we aren’t arguing for open borders or granting asylum to everybody. We’re just asking for a modicum of compassion for these children and their parents as they commit a non-violent misdemeanor to escape unimaginable struggles.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 10:59:15 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.
So the kids will be taken and put in a detention center for weeks or months? Where they largely don't get to go outside. Those largely strike me as violent misdemeanors.

Oftentimes they’re put into foster care, which in many cases is worse.

Children suffer when parents break the law. It sucks. The blame falls on the parents, though.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 11:01:39 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.

Surely you see the difference between these crimes and illegal border crossing. At least in this case, we aren’t arguing for open borders or granting asylum to everybody. We’re just asking for a modicum of compassion for these children and their parents as they commit a non-violent misdemeanor to escape unimaginable struggles.

What’s your preferred solution? Who pays for that?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 18, 2018, 11:05:26 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 18, 2018, 11:18:36 AM
This is less about immigration as it is about Trump’s promotion of white nationalism. Just look at the comments he made today about Germany practically urging nationalists in that country to overtake current leadership. Comments like this validate these groups around the world as do his actions.

And lying about immigration increasing the German crime rate, which is the lowest since 1992, while spraying dogwhistles about immigrants "violently changing culture". Also now linking the children we're taking with "the worst criminals on Earth" because why not.  The President of the United States is about two notches away from just tweeting the 14 words. What a time.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: mqtcelticsfan on June 18, 2018, 11:33:08 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.

Surely you see the difference between these crimes and illegal border crossing. At least in this case, we aren’t arguing for open borders or granting asylum to everybody. We’re just asking for a modicum of compassion for these children and their parents as they commit a non-violent misdemeanor to escape unimaginable struggles.

What’s your preferred solution? Who pays for that?

Enact a new set of laws governing this scenario wherein families can be held together. We already are housing the entire family, just do so together.

In the interim, end the practice of separating, even if that means not prosecuting.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: mef730 on June 18, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
It's far better treatment than you or I would get if we broke the law in Mexico.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/mexico-us-marine-detained/index.html


It is heartless definitely and bad optics for the world.  Most all of us don't it.

But here in the USA we often take away children who are put at risk by their parents.   These kids have been walked through the desert, placed in uncooled trailers, basically smuggled as human cargo, and exposed to areas where human trafficking is commonplace.    Do you think their parents placed them at risk?   I do. 

How is this any different than the Department of Human Services taking away a kid that was left in a hot car?  Do you think that is bad and this is not?

Italics mine: I absolutely think that their parents put them at risk. And what it says to me is that they thought the risk of remaining in their home country was so horrendous that they were willing to walk their kids through the desert, place them in uncooled trailers, smuggle them as human cargo and expose them to areas where human trafficking is commonplace. That's how much they wanted better lives for their kids.

We're America. We don't do the things that we've been doing. Stephen Miller is the face of what has become a cruel, cruel country.

Mike
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 11:46:36 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.

Surely you see the difference between these crimes and illegal border crossing. At least in this case, we aren’t arguing for open borders or granting asylum to everybody. We’re just asking for a modicum of compassion for these children and their parents as they commit a non-violent misdemeanor to escape unimaginable struggles.

What’s your preferred solution? Who pays for that?

Enact a new set of laws governing this scenario wherein families can be held together. We already are housing the entire family, just do so together.

In the interim, end the practice of separating, even if that means not prosecuting.

Agree with the first.

Unsure on the second. If you mean “Catch and release” into Mexico, maybe, but I’d want a conviction (that can be stipulated to in less than 24 hours, with no further jail time). If you mean let them into the US, no way.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 18, 2018, 11:50:34 AM
It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:
I don't really know how to put it in less uncertain terms, but I don't give a rat's arse about what other countries or other people do or could do. I care about how my elected representatives choose to perform their duties.

To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.
The obligation to release children after 20 days does not imply that you have to separate children from their parents when you take them into custody. In fact, nothing is stopping you from keeping families together until children can be released to a designated person as the Flores Settlement requires.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: mqtcelticsfan on June 18, 2018, 11:53:31 AM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
Entering illegally for a first time offender is a misdemeanor. Will most of us lose our kids for a length of time for a misdemeanor? Will they take them from us while breast feeding, or tell us they're being taken for a bath, or tell us we'll never see them again? For a misdemeanor?

I don't see what would be so difficult about family camps. We could keep Japanese families together during WW2, but a few thousand immigrants at the border and we're suddenly overwhelmed.

Yes, families are separated all the time for misdemeanors.  In Maine, Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor.  Heroin possssion is, in many cases, a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a fire arm by a drug addict is a misdemeanor. Unlawful sexual touching of an unconscious person is a misdemeanor. Some child p0rnography is a misdemeanor.

Surely you see the difference between these crimes and illegal border crossing. At least in this case, we aren’t arguing for open borders or granting asylum to everybody. We’re just asking for a modicum of compassion for these children and their parents as they commit a non-violent misdemeanor to escape unimaginable struggles.

What’s your preferred solution? Who pays for that?

Enact a new set of laws governing this scenario wherein families can be held together. We already are housing the entire family, just do so together.

In the interim, end the practice of separating, even if that means not prosecuting.

Agree with the first.

Unsure on the second. If you mean “Catch and release” into Mexico, maybe, but I’d want a conviction (that can be stipulated to in less than 24 hours, with no further jail time). If you mean let them into the US, no way.

In contrast to the current practice, I would settle for this. I’m aware of the impasse we’re sure to be approaching on immigration policy, but just making those couple of changes would at least get us back to a discussion about how restrictive we want our policy to be instead of “how exactly do we define the word cage?” in regard to children.

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:
I don't really know how to put it in less uncertain terms, but I don't give a rat's arse about what other countries or other people do or could do. I care about how my elected representatives choose to perform their duties.

In almost all cases (the first time offenders looking at misdemeanors) they perform their duties by saying "You entered our country illegally.  You can return to your country with your children, with no further jail time."  If an illegal migrant refuses that offer, what would you have us do? 

Quote
To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.
The obligation to release children after 20 days does not imply that you have to separate children from their parents when you take them into custody. In fact, nothing is stopping you from keeping families together until children can be released to a designated person as the Flores Settlement requires.
[/quote]

What's the practical difference between placing children with HHS immediately (because their parents are being prosecuted for a crime that carries the extraordinarily light penalties of credit for time served and perhaps a promise not to re-enter), or keeping the children with their parents for 20 days before putting them in HHS custody?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: greenrunsdeep41 on June 18, 2018, 12:18:05 PM
I'll start by saying I am, generally, liberal in my ideology.

I fully understand the logic - If you break a law, you go to prison. You cannot bring your children to prison. - In this case, it is sad but true.

With that said, I do take exception with the lack of transparency relative to how they are treating/holding these kids. They are still people and deserve to be treated as such. With Dignity. Also, I am frustrated that they have become a political bargaining chip. There needs to be a clear path for a resolution to reunite these kids with their parents or to establish them as citizens, I don't have a specific idea about the how/what this looks like, but it needs to be in place and clearly expounded upon.

The failure of the Trump administration and many conservatives/republicans is that they seem to be unaware of this fact - OF COURSE, PEOPLE WERE GOING TO BE UP IN ARMS ABOUT TAKING CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTS AND PUT IN CAGES. How can you be surprised, offended, perplexed, politically or sensibly trigged about this? They are freakin kids, treat them with respect regardless of what their parents have done, all this is out of their control.

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 12:19:28 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 12:31:09 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.

After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years. 

Torture is never okay.  Making children comfortable should be a top priority, even if their parents are largely at fault.  But, the best choice here is for the parents to take responsibility, voluntarily leave the country with a misdemeanor credit for time served sentence and take their children home with them.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: blink on June 18, 2018, 01:49:29 PM
It's far better treatment than you or I would get if we broke the law in Mexico.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/mexico-us-marine-detained/index.html


It is heartless definitely and bad optics for the world.  Most all of us don't it.

But here in the USA we often take away children who are put at risk by their parents.   These kids have been walked through the desert, placed in uncooled trailers, basically smuggled as human cargo, and exposed to areas where human trafficking is commonplace.    Do you think their parents placed them at risk?   I do. 

How is this any different than the Department of Human Services taking away a kid that was left in a hot car?  Do you think that is bad and this is not?


We're America. We don't do the things that we've been doing. Stephen Miller is the face of what has become a cruel, cruel country.

Mike

In any other administration (republican or democrat), Stephen Miller wouldn't ever have been considered, much less appointed to any position like he currently holds.  The word vile comes to mind.  But unfortunately all this comes back to Trump. 

His cabinet / staff selections are a greatest hits of the uneducated for their position (Ben Carson), people looking to sell out / sell off our national parks (Ryan Zinke), to the downright criminal (Scott Pruitt). 

Trump has hired people like Stephen Miller because they share Trump's 'values'.    This unfortunately it doesn't align well with the held values of the majority of our country regardless of party affiliation. 

http://thehill.com/latino/392733-poll-majority-opposes-policy-of-separating-families-at-border (http://thehill.com/latino/392733-poll-majority-opposes-policy-of-separating-families-at-border)
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 18, 2018, 01:54:50 PM
After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years.
The law requires that the kids were released into the custody of a person designated by the parents, it doesn't require that they get handed over to HHS.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.

After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years. 


Again, why are we locking up asylum seekers?  That is the change to the policy.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 18, 2018, 02:00:48 PM
Again, why are we locking up asylum seekers?  That is the change to the policy.
This isn't new, though. It was happening as early as 2016. Purportedly because detention centers allow for easier removal of individuals whose claim to asylum is being roundly rejected.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/us/family-immigration-detention-centers/index.html
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 02:02:59 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.

After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years. 


Again, why are we locking up asylum seekers?  That is the change to the policy.

Because if we let them in the country pending a decision the chances of them ever being found again are about 0%?

They’re not really locked up. They can go home whenever they want.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 02:05:30 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.

After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years. 


Again, why are we locking up asylum seekers?  That is the change to the policy.

Because if we let them in the country pending a decision the chances of them ever being found again are about 0%?

They’re not really locked up. They can go home whenever they want.

Sounds like a complete lack of due process to me.  Also, as I know someone who was denied asylum status and left the country, I can say that 0% is false.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 02:14:30 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.

After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years. 


Again, why are we locking up asylum seekers?  That is the change to the policy.

Because if we let them in the country pending a decision the chances of them ever being found again are about 0%?

They’re not really locked up. They can go home whenever they want.

Sounds like a complete lack of due process to me.  Also, as I know someone who was denied asylum status and left the country, I can say that 0% is false.

Gotcha. So, even though 10 out of 11 asylum seekers from Mexico were denied asylum under Barack Obama, you think we should let all 11 in?

What’s the difference between that and a completely open border?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: saltlover on June 18, 2018, 02:19:54 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.

After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years. 


Again, why are we locking up asylum seekers?  That is the change to the policy.

Because if we let them in the country pending a decision the chances of them ever being found again are about 0%?

They’re not really locked up. They can go home whenever they want.

Sounds like a complete lack of due process to me.  Also, as I know someone who was denied asylum status and left the country, I can say that 0% is false.

Gotcha. So, even though 10 out of 11 asylum seekers from Mexico were denied asylum under Barack Obama, you think we should let all 11 in?

What’s the difference between that and a completely open border?

Even by your argument there’s about 200 children being held in detention centers forcibly taken from their parents who have a legitimate right to be here.  If you’re okay with that, then I have nothing more to say.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 02:26:23 PM
Quote
There is no law whose enforcement requires you to separate children from their parents.

Huh? Pretty much all of them involve jail do. And, if you commit a crime while with your children, expect a call from Child Protective Services.
We're talking about illegal border crossing. Can you please specify the statute that requires law enforcement to put children in separate detention facilities?

It is completely in the control of the parents to avoid separation:

Quote
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.


To answer your question,

Quote
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.

Since asylum takes longer than 20 days, children must be legally separated from their children.

I repeat, we are turning away asylum seekers from legal ports of entry, denying them the right to legally enter and file asylum.  That is contrary to the law, precedent, and publicly stated policy.  It is not necessary.  And it’s a unilateral, unannounced change by the executive branch.  It is not democratic, it is not decent, it is used to torture children, we should be appalled, and we should not allow INNOCENT CHILDREN to be used as a political bargaining chip.  I question anyone’s humanity who thinks that this is the right thing to do.

We are becoming more barbaric by the day, following the well-travelled path of slavery, apartheid, and genocide.  There should be no defense to the torture of children.  It is wrong, and it is not called for by the law.

After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years. 


Again, why are we locking up asylum seekers?  That is the change to the policy.

Because if we let them in the country pending a decision the chances of them ever being found again are about 0%?

They’re not really locked up. They can go home whenever they want.

Sounds like a complete lack of due process to me.  Also, as I know someone who was denied asylum status and left the country, I can say that 0% is false.

Gotcha. So, even though 10 out of 11 asylum seekers from Mexico were denied asylum under Barack Obama, you think we should let all 11 in?

What’s the difference between that and a completely open border?

Even by your argument there’s about 200 children being held in detention centers forcibly taken from their parents who have a legitimate right to be here.  If you’re okay with that, then I have nothing more to say.

Well, no, my guess is that Obama let in way too many.  So, call it 50, which is still probably too high.

And, I’m probably heartless, but I’d rather have 50 kids in a government run facility than 2000 kids plus their families being allowed illegal entry into our country every few weeks.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 18, 2018, 02:28:01 PM
After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years.
The law requires that the kids were released into the custody of a person designated by the parents, it doesn't require that they get handed over to HHS.

Unfortunately, HHS is probably significantly better for the kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9d7d623807d0
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 19, 2018, 10:43:17 AM
After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years.
The law requires that the kids were released into the custody of a person designated by the parents, it doesn't require that they get handed over to HHS.

Unfortunately, HHS is probably significantly better for the kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9d7d623807d0
Based on the article you linked to I can see HHS is particularly great at their job...

Quote
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 19, 2018, 10:50:18 AM
After 20 days, current law requires separation where parents are being detained (in almost all cases, for committing a felony or applying for asylum).  That's been on the books for 20+ years.
The law requires that the kids were released into the custody of a person designated by the parents, it doesn't require that they get handed over to HHS.

Unfortunately, HHS is probably significantly better for the kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9d7d623807d0
Based on the article you linked to I can see HHS is particularly great at their job...

Quote
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Living in HHS “cages” is probably better for the kids.

But obviously, the kids need better accommodations. They don’t belong in prison-like conditions, even if in almost all cases the parents could resolve the issue immediately.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 19, 2018, 10:59:05 AM
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Living in HHS “cages” is probably better for the kids.

But obviously, the kids need better accommodations. They don’t belong in prison-like conditions, even if in almost all cases the parents could resolve the issue immediately.
I'm sure that's what they told folks in Guantanamo while they were waterboarding them, too. "You can make this stop right now".

However, you and me and everyone else who's lived in the US long enough knows that how the law is being enforced lies squarely on the executive. Let's call a spade a spade: this is only happening because this administration in general, and the AG in particular wants it to happen.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 19, 2018, 12:11:34 PM
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Living in HHS “cages” is probably better for the kids.

But obviously, the kids need better accommodations. They don’t belong in prison-like conditions, even if in almost all cases the parents could resolve the issue immediately.
I'm sure that's what they told folks in Guantanamo while they were waterboarding them, too. "You can make this stop right now".

However, you and me and everyone else who's lived in the US long enough knows that how the law is being enforced lies squarely on the executive. Let's call a spade a spade: this is only happening because this administration in general, and the AG in particular wants it to happen.

It does lie with the executive.

Under prior administrations, a lot of people caught at the border were released to enter the United States illegally. That’s terrible policy.

Locking up children in subpar facilities is a terrible policy, although for different reasons.

So, what’s the middle ground?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 19, 2018, 12:13:09 PM
Good (meaning horrifying) article on a ground-level example - a Honduran woman has not seen her 5 year old son for six weeks since federal agents pulled him away from her in their cell, despite voluntarily agreeing to deportation weeks ago. No guarantee they'll be reunited before being sent back.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son (https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son)
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 19, 2018, 12:41:15 PM
Good (meaning horrifying) article on a ground-level example - a Honduran woman has not seen her 5 year old son for six weeks since federal agents pulled him away from her in their cell, despite voluntarily agreeing to deportation weeks ago. No guarantee they'll be reunited before being sent back.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son (https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son)
There was also a story on NPR today morning about a Salvadorean man whose son was whisked away from TX to San Diego before the guy even apperared in front of an immigration judge (so less than 24 hours). Strange how the administration can be very efficient when it wants to.

Also for your attention, an actual Dr Seuss cartoon from 1941 criticizing our refusal to take in refugee Jewish children (note the shirt). History does repeat itself.

(https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2015/11/dr-seuss-adolf-the-wolf.jpg)
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 01:11:20 PM
We as a country are better than this

Just disgusting actions being taken by disgusting people
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 19, 2018, 01:21:19 PM
Good (meaning horrifying) article on a ground-level example - a Honduran woman has not seen her 5 year old son for six weeks since federal agents pulled him away from her in their cell, despite voluntarily agreeing to deportation weeks ago. No guarantee they'll be reunited before being sent back.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son (https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son)
There was also a story on NPR today morning about a Salvadorean man whose son was whisked away from TX to San Diego before the guy even apperared in front of an immigration judge (so less than 24 hours). Strange how the administration can be very efficient when it wants to.

Also for your attention, an actual Dr Seuss cartoon from 1941 criticizing our refusal to take in refugee Jewish children (note the shirt). History does repeat itself.

(https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2015/11/dr-seuss-adolf-the-wolf.jpg)

BINGO!

But we weren't separating children from there parents, that was something that NAZIS  did. The USA is on the wrong side of history on this.   
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 01:26:18 PM
Good (meaning horrifying) article on a ground-level example - a Honduran woman has not seen her 5 year old son for six weeks since federal agents pulled him away from her in their cell, despite voluntarily agreeing to deportation weeks ago. No guarantee they'll be reunited before being sent back.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son (https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/in-ice-detention-a-honduran-woman-fears-deportation-without-her-son)
There was also a story on NPR today morning about a Salvadorean man whose son was whisked away from TX to San Diego before the guy even apperared in front of an immigration judge (so less than 24 hours). Strange how the administration can be very efficient when it wants to.

Also for your attention, an actual Dr Seuss cartoon from 1941 criticizing our refusal to take in refugee Jewish children (note the shirt). History does repeat itself.

(https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2015/11/dr-seuss-adolf-the-wolf.jpg)

BINGO!

But we weren't separating children from there parents, that was something that NAZIS  did. The USA is on the wrong side of history on this.

Trump in his mind is a dictator and acts like one while our inept government fails to keep him in check. This is how the holocaust started. Separating families, taking away civil liberties for certain groups and nationalism.

This is a slippery slope and anyone trying to justify what he is doing needs to reevaluate some things.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 19, 2018, 01:28:01 PM
We as a country are better than this

Just disgusting actions being taken by disgusting people

We should be better than this. Historically we very much have not been. See our Japanese internment camps, treatment of natives, prior waves of anti-immigrant sentiment and violence (toward groups who have since magically become "real Americans") etc etc etc.

What we have done at times in the past is foster normative and legal environments that have largely withheld political power from people for whom deliberate cruelty by authority is a positive. That's receding very quickly as the emboldened baby fascists start to toddle around and check-and-balance roles are willfully ignored, but it's far from the first time.


Also for your attention, an actual Dr Seuss cartoon from 1941 criticizing our refusal to take in refugee Jewish children (note the shirt). History does repeat itself.

(https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2015/11/dr-seuss-adolf-the-wolf.jpg)


Here's another timely one:

(https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?resize_to=width&src=https%3A%2F%2Fartsy-media-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2FqBPUwEs3P7CiBI2S9Css4Q%252Fe4cbfcad97764eea84ba685be9fda62d.jpg&width=1200&quality=80)

Very fine people, dontcha know.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Vermont Green on June 19, 2018, 01:58:39 PM
It is the rhetoric that is the problem, not the policy.  Policy can be changed (as Trump did recently) but that doesn't seem to be what all the shouting is about.  Resolving the overall immigration problem will not we easy.  It is a lesser of several evils type of problem.  No easy solutions.  But if this is the rhetoric that is wrapped around it, all you will get is more national division, just as the Russians want.  There is plenty of this on all sides but these days, there is clearly a central figure in promoting "Make America Divided".

A Trump Tweet:

Quote
"Democrats are the problem. They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!" he wrote.

Question to some republican running for office:  Do you agree that Democrats want illegal immigrants to infest our Country? 

I actually think the republicans should impeach Trump, take their licks, and finally move on from him.  He is going to destroy the party.  You keep hearing things like "privately, republicans are concerned" but then nothing publicly.  Every day that goes by, republicans in general will own more and more of what Trump stands for, as in the case of this example.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Sophomore on June 19, 2018, 02:01:44 PM
It is the rhetoric that is the problem, not the policy.  Policy can be changed (as Trump did recently) but that doesn't seem to be what all the shouting is about.  Resolving the overall immigration problem will not we easy.  It is a lesser of several evils type of problem.  No easy solutions.  But if this is the rhetoric that is wrapped around it, all you will get is more national division, just as the Russians want.  There is plenty of this on all sides but these days, there is clearly a central figure in promoting "Make America Divided".

A Trump Tweet:

Quote
"Democrats are the problem. They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!" he wrote.

Question to some republican running for office:  Do you agree that Democrats want illegal immigrants to infest our Country? 

I actually think the republicans should impeach Trump, take their licks, and finally move on from him.  He is going to destroy the party.  You keep hearing things like "privately, republicans are concerned" but then nothing publicly.  Every day that goes by, republicans in general will own more and more of what Trump stands for, as in the case of this example.

I don’t think he’s destroying the party. He’s just bringing out the very worst in it - making it much worse than it was. Unfortunately, most who are on “team Republican” will rationalize and find a way to go along with him.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 02:15:42 PM
It is the rhetoric that is the problem, not the policy.  Policy can be changed (as Trump did recently) but that doesn't seem to be what all the shouting is about.  Resolving the overall immigration problem will not we easy.  It is a lesser of several evils type of problem.  No easy solutions.  But if this is the rhetoric that is wrapped around it, all you will get is more national division, just as the Russians want.  There is plenty of this on all sides but these days, there is clearly a central figure in promoting "Make America Divided".

A Trump Tweet:

Quote
"Democrats are the problem. They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!" he wrote.

Question to some republican running for office:  Do you agree that Democrats want illegal immigrants to infest our Country? 

I actually think the republicans should impeach Trump, take their licks, and finally move on from him.  He is going to destroy the party.  You keep hearing things like "privately, republicans are concerned" but then nothing publicly.  Every day that goes by, republicans in general will own more and more of what Trump stands for, as in the case of this example.

I don’t think he’s destroying the party. He’s just bringing out the very worst in it - making it much worse than it was. Unfortunately, most who are on “team Republican” will rationalize and find a way to go along with him.

The Republican party as we once knew it is dead. It is now Trump's party and those that once stood against him (Cruz, Rubio, Graham, etc) now have sold out to stay in office.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 19, 2018, 03:08:35 PM
If we are following the letter of the law by separating children from their parents for the only crime of wanting to come to America for a better life, then we now know why former administrations, Democrat and Republican, weren't following the letter of the law, because its disgusting. The law needs to change.

The decision to create this environment falls squarely on the Trump administration. Of course, why should this surprise anyone. This president loves to alienate our allies and his new buddy is a guy that killed his family to come into power, starved his people out and has one of the worst human rights records of any leader in the world.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 19, 2018, 03:38:59 PM
It does lie with the executive.

Under prior administrations, a lot of people caught at the border were released to enter the United States illegally. That’s terrible policy.

Locking up children in subpar facilities is a terrible policy, although for different reasons.

So, what’s the middle ground?
Imprisoning an innocent man and letting a criminal walk free are both "terrible" judicial outcomes, yet they are not created equal.

To paraphrase what I said before (well, ok, someone else said it, I just blatantly ripped it off :P), if you somehow consider the two policies that you're describing to be equivalent, then we don't have a difference in political opinion, we have a difference in morality.

You're a smart guy with a law degree. I shouldn't have to educate you about the wide variety of options in the middle (ranging from "not reprehensible" to "completely acceptable"). I'm also sure you understand how in a world of limited resources, the Executive cannot universally enforce all laws, all the time, everywhere. In this particular case, every dollar spent on ferrying children around the country, you're not spending a dollar on expediting the hearings of deportable aliens. The Government makes choices where to spend our tax dollars all the time; this particular situation is no different.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 19, 2018, 03:56:17 PM
It does lie with the executive.

Under prior administrations, a lot of people caught at the border were released to enter the United States illegally. That’s terrible policy.

Locking up children in subpar facilities is a terrible policy, although for different reasons.

So, what’s the middle ground?
Imprisoning an innocent man and letting a criminal walk free are both "terrible" judicial outcomes, yet they are not created equal.

To paraphrase what I said before (well, ok, someone else said it, I just blatantly ripped it off :P), if you somehow consider the two policies that you're describing to be equivalent, then we don't have a difference in political opinion, we have a difference in morality.

You're a smart guy with a law degree. I shouldn't have to educate you about the wide variety of options in the middle (ranging from "not reprehensible" to "completely acceptable"). I'm also sure you understand how in a world of limited resources, the Executive cannot universally enforce all laws, all the time, everywhere. In this particular case, every dollar spent on ferrying children around the country, you're not spending a dollar on expediting the hearings of deportable aliens. The Government makes choices where to spend our tax dollars all the time; this particular situation is no different.

How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country? 

If you want to arrest the parents, set bail, return them to Mexico and have them come back to a border facility at a later time for a hearing, I'm fine with that.  Don't let them into the U.S., though, and if they try to cross the border again pending bail, make the consequences severe.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 19, 2018, 04:30:29 PM
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 19, 2018, 04:39:16 PM
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 19, 2018, 04:44:30 PM
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
If only we lived in a country where all Americans were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Do you care to elaborate on your throwaway comment, or is this a good place to adjourn the convo?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 19, 2018, 04:45:10 PM
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Beat LA on June 19, 2018, 06:17:17 PM
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Don't worry, man. After these kids have been separated from their parents and somehow survive imprisonment, you and I and everyone else knows exactly as to what will happen down the line - those now angry, detached, and disenfranchised children will probably turn to a life of crime, etc., in an attempt to get back at the system, by which point, or not, as the case may be, Trump will be out of office and conservatives are going to point to these very same people, again, in regards to the debate over immigration and say, "See? That's why they should have never been allowed to enter the United States in the first place. Thanks, Obama." ::) *facepalm* #TooPredictable ::)
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 19, 2018, 06:20:41 PM
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
If only we lived in a country where all Americans were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Do you care to elaborate on your throwaway comment, or is this a good place to adjourn the convo?

We should solve the problem of our own malingers before bringing in another country’s. Literally having open borders through a “catch and release” system makes the problem worse.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 06:43:27 PM
Labeling of others and being disrespectful of their opinions is not tolerated here. Let this be a warning to all.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Vermont Green on June 19, 2018, 06:47:44 PM
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Trump said that illegal immigrants are infesting our country.  That is a follow up to they are mostly rapists and drug dealers.  I assume Roy H. is an independent thinker but have a hard time believing that he and others like him are not influenced by this narrative when they ask things like "how much tax dollars are being spent on illegal immigrants".

Now no one wants "illegal" immigrants to be here and benefiting from tax dollars and I think most people believe that legal immigration is good and needed but everyone is shouting so much that no one is stopping to consider what they are actually arguing for.  Statements that are intended to apply to illegal immigrants are spilling over to all immigrants.  People who have compassion for asylum seekers are being painted as being pro-drug dealers and wanting open boarders.

I know I may sound condescending which I hate and is not the intent but people should stop listening to anything Trump says and then just take a step back and reassess what you are actually trying to debate and as part of that, listen to what the other side is actually trying to say. 

I don't think there are too many Americans that want illegal, criminal immigrants pouring over the boarder (as our president claims that all democrats do).  Further, I think most Americans understand that legal immigration and asylum are a good things.  Unfortunately, the rhetoric from Trump is instigating the fringe to harbor and increasing level of hostility towards all immigrants and I really resent Trump for this.  The division that it is creating in the name of some political points is really a dangerous thing for our country.  This is what people should be shouting about.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Neurotic Guy on June 19, 2018, 06:51:23 PM

To the thread title, I wanted to chime in with my impression of Stephen Miller – based on watching his TV performances, reading some of his writings and listening to TV talking heads talk about him.   So… basically I don’t know him at all, so the following is nothing more than an impression, and probably unfair to him: 

I see Miller as an agitator who essentially believes that you create “wins” by creating chaos and breakdown usually with bullying tactics -- and then, from the rubble you build things back as you want them to be and claim victory (whether victory is real or not).  I think this is his methodology for power mongering, similar to tactics that have been utilized by autocratic regimes throughout history.   

Trump (I believe) is strongly influenced by Miller's dogged ideological determination and impudence, and by his aggressive blueprint for "winning" (or his interpretations of winning).   The rationale is that chaos (the means) is justified by the successful “end” (as interpreted by Miller/Trump), which usually means that he has successfully fired up and solidified the base.   

Trump created chaos/unrest in order to “scare” Kim to the table in Singapore (“Little Rocket Man”; “Fire and Fury”; “Bigger Button”); Trump is creating chaos in the international marketplace (tariffs) to bully others into new "deals" that he can claim will “put America first" to the exclusion of supporting friends and longer-term world interests; Trump is creating chaos amongst “friendly” world leaders (G7 dissonance; pulling out of agreements; lauding Putin and Kim); and Trump is creating chaos at the Mexican border in order to manipulate the direction of immigration policy – ultimately solidifying the fear of “The Others” among his base --justifying "The Wall" and other hardline immigration management ideas that codify his power.
   
I believe Stephen Miller has that smile of the ten year old boy who has successfully teased his little sister into tears.  My guess is that he loves the family separation because of the chaos and division it has created—getting everyone riled up, allowing the mouthpiece (Trump) to use his greatest skill (lying) to push the left/center into compassionate musings that Trump’s base can unify in scoffing at.  Long game is that the center/left will need to address the family separation legislatively -- once again providing justification of a Miller/Trump win by “proving” that it was the left that caused the immoral policy to begin with.   Miller is both dangerous and smart.

Stephen Miller has far more power than a person of his experience, moral bandwidth, and intelligence should ever have in this country.   The Miller-Trump team is scary.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Beat LA on June 19, 2018, 06:51:34 PM
How many tax dollars are spent on allowing a family of illegal immigrants to enter the country?
This is an excellent question. My best guess at this point is, "Most likely very little, and given that we routinely count on unskilled seasonal workers from Central and Latin America, we might actually be better off when all is said and done". That's before we consider that the main benefit of immigration is not the immigrant, it's the first-generation US-born and/or raised children.

In fact, if you're concerned about the costs of illegal immigration, there's a good argument to be made that the most efficient solution is to cut questionable programs that spend a ton of tax dollars but may or may not actually deter illegal immigrants from coming into the country.

If only we lived in a country where all immigrants were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society.
If only we lived in a country where all Americans were hard-working, self-sustaining, positively-contributing members of society... we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Do you care to elaborate on your throwaway comment, or is this a good place to adjourn the convo?

We should solve the problem of our own malingers before bringing in another country’s. Literally having open borders through a “catch and release” system makes the problem worse.

You mean malingerers, right?

Either way -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt8VYOfr8To

;D
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: SparzWizard on June 19, 2018, 06:52:00 PM


But wait, some Republicans and extreme conservatives excuses are "they're breaking the law, they shouldn't be crossing our borders illegally to begin with"  ::)
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 06:54:20 PM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: ImShakHeIsShaq on June 19, 2018, 07:19:52 PM
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Trump said that illegal immigrants are infesting our country.  That is a follow up to they are mostly rapists and drug dealers.  I assume Roy H. is an independent thinker but have a hard time believing that he and others like him are not influenced by this narrative when they ask things like "how much tax dollars are being spent on illegal immigrants".

Now no one wants "illegal" immigrants to be here and benefiting from tax dollars and I think most people believe that legal immigration is good and needed but everyone is shouting so much that no one is stopping to consider what they are actually arguing for.  Statements that are intended to apply to illegal immigrants are spilling over to all immigrants.  People who have compassion for asylum seekers are being painted as being pro-drug dealers and wanting open boarders.

I know I may sound condescending which I hate and is not the intent but people should stop listening to anything Trump says and then just take a step back and reassess what you are actually trying to debate and as part of that, listen to what the other side is actually trying to say. 

I don't think there are too many Americans that want illegal, criminal immigrants pouring over the boarder (as our president claims that all democrats do).  Further, I think most Americans understand that legal immigration and asylum are a good things.  Unfortunately, the rhetoric from Trump is instigating the fringe to harbor and increasing level of hostility towards all immigrants and I really resent Trump for this.  The division that it is creating in the name of some political points is really a dangerous thing for our country.  This is what people should be shouting about.


How many people think about the billions these people pay in taxes and the like but will never benefit from. They have to pay most things like any other American but unlike us they can never get it back through things like Social Security and Medicare! They will never reap those benefits from SS yet they put billions into it. Undocumented workers are paying and filing taxes.

s/n: I guess I can't say the equivalent of "Amen" now, as my comment was deleted. Ugh.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 19, 2018, 07:23:50 PM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except “they” didn’t come for anybody here. “They” started prosecuting criminals.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 07:24:06 PM
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Trump said that illegal immigrants are infesting our country.  That is a follow up to they are mostly rapists and drug dealers.  I assume Roy H. is an independent thinker but have a hard time believing that he and others like him are not influenced by this narrative when they ask things like "how much tax dollars are being spent on illegal immigrants".

Now no one wants "illegal" immigrants to be here and benefiting from tax dollars and I think most people believe that legal immigration is good and needed but everyone is shouting so much that no one is stopping to consider what they are actually arguing for.  Statements that are intended to apply to illegal immigrants are spilling over to all immigrants.  People who have compassion for asylum seekers are being painted as being pro-drug dealers and wanting open boarders.

I know I may sound condescending which I hate and is not the intent but people should stop listening to anything Trump says and then just take a step back and reassess what you are actually trying to debate and as part of that, listen to what the other side is actually trying to say. 

I don't think there are too many Americans that want illegal, criminal immigrants pouring over the boarder (as our president claims that all democrats do).  Further, I think most Americans understand that legal immigration and asylum are a good things.  Unfortunately, the rhetoric from Trump is instigating the fringe to harbor and increasing level of hostility towards all immigrants and I really resent Trump for this.  The division that it is creating in the name of some political points is really a dangerous thing for our country.  This is what people should be shouting about.


How many people think about the billions these people pay in taxes and the like but will never benefit from. They have to pay most things like any other American but unlike us they can never get it back through things like Social Security and Medicare! They will never reap those benefits from SS yet they put billions into it. Undocumented workers are paying and filing taxes.

s/n: I guess I can't say the equivalent of "Amen" now, as my comment was deleted. Ugh.

The jobs they do...cleaning toilets, roofing houses, doing things most Americans don’t want to do.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 07:27:50 PM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except “they” didn’t come for anybody here. “They” started prosecuting criminals.

So you condone separating families? Do you have children? Because no parent could tolerate that. Maybe you are just a heartless person. And if you are rationalizing this situation somehow, I feel bad for you.

There is zero need to separate children from their families.

They start by targeting immigrants. Then they move onto the next group of people they want out of the way. So thankful my ancestors and your ancestors Roy were not treated this way when they came to this country.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: ImShakHeIsShaq on June 19, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Most are. Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a pretty broad brush that they aren't.

Trump said that illegal immigrants are infesting our country.  That is a follow up to they are mostly rapists and drug dealers.  I assume Roy H. is an independent thinker but have a hard time believing that he and others like him are not influenced by this narrative when they ask things like "how much tax dollars are being spent on illegal immigrants".

Now no one wants "illegal" immigrants to be here and benefiting from tax dollars and I think most people believe that legal immigration is good and needed but everyone is shouting so much that no one is stopping to consider what they are actually arguing for.  Statements that are intended to apply to illegal immigrants are spilling over to all immigrants.  People who have compassion for asylum seekers are being painted as being pro-drug dealers and wanting open boarders.

I know I may sound condescending which I hate and is not the intent but people should stop listening to anything Trump says and then just take a step back and reassess what you are actually trying to debate and as part of that, listen to what the other side is actually trying to say. 

I don't think there are too many Americans that want illegal, criminal immigrants pouring over the boarder (as our president claims that all democrats do).  Further, I think most Americans understand that legal immigration and asylum are a good things.  Unfortunately, the rhetoric from Trump is instigating the fringe to harbor and increasing level of hostility towards all immigrants and I really resent Trump for this.  The division that it is creating in the name of some political points is really a dangerous thing for our country.  This is what people should be shouting about.


How many people think about the billions these people pay in taxes and the like but will never benefit from. They have to pay most things like any other American but unlike us they can never get it back through things like Social Security and Medicare! They will never reap those benefits from SS yet they put billions into it. Undocumented workers are paying and filing taxes.

s/n: I guess I can't say the equivalent of "Amen" now, as my comment was deleted. Ugh.

The jobs they do...cleaning toilets, roofing houses, doing things most Americans don’t want to do.

I always laugh when I hear someone say "they are taking all of our jobs!" as if We, the entitled people, want those jobs anyway!! No one really wants those jobs but will argue like it's life or death to them! They can't "take" something if We were actually willing to do it ourselves.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 19, 2018, 07:31:35 PM
No more labeling of others, calling them names, etc. due to their opinion
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 19, 2018, 07:44:47 PM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except “they” didn’t come for anybody here. “They” started prosecuting criminals.

So you condone separating families? Do you have children? Because no parent could tolerate that. Maybe you are just a heartless person. And if you are rationalizing this situation somehow, I feel bad for you.

There is zero need to separate children from their families.

They start by targeting immigrants. Then they move onto the next group of people they want out of the way. So thankful my ancestors and your ancestors Roy were not treated this way when they came to this country.

First immigrants.

Then revoking visas

Then revoking legal residence.

Then revoking citizenship from people who outright lied on old applications.

Then revoking citizenship from people who accidentally lied on old applications.

If you can commit human rights violations by casting any group as an "infestation" of "animals," it's not about an "aw shucks its the law," it's about hate and the exercise of power.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 19, 2018, 07:47:18 PM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except “they” didn’t come for anybody here. “They” started prosecuting criminals.

So you condone separating families? Do you have children? Because no parent could tolerate that. Maybe you are just a heartless person. And if you are rationalizing this situation somehow, I feel bad for you.

There is zero need to separate children from their families.

They start by targeting immigrants. Then they move onto the next group of people they want out of the way. So thankful my ancestors and your ancestors Roy were not treated this way when they came to this country.

I have two children.  I tend to leave them at home when I commit crimes.

I also see children separated from their parents every day, both through the criminal justice system and via child welfare.  I represent parents routinely in child welfare / CPS cases.

People get separated from their children because of their choices all the time.  One of those choices is committing crimes.  The children should be treated well and housed appropriately, but the separation itself isn't the fault of the US.  We should be more upset with a system that for years has just overlooked the law. 

For years, Democrats and sympathetic Republicans have talked about their agreement in "securing the border", hiring of more Border Patrol agents, etc.  This was seen as a reasonable, more moderate position, rather than building a wall.  Well, what's the sense, if we're going to have open borders?  Our Border Patrol catches illegal immigrants, and then lets them go into the United States.  Illegal immigrants then learn that it's an automatic "get out of jail free" card if you're traveling with kids, so they knowingly decide to break our laws, putting their kids in peril, to get access to the US system.  The "catch and release" system is flawed on its face, and only encourages the illegal immigration that our government supposedly rejects.  It's open borders, just under a different name.

And, respectfully, you have no idea how my ancestors were treated.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 19, 2018, 07:58:31 PM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except “they” didn’t come for anybody here. “They” started prosecuting criminals.

So you condone separating families? Do you have children? Because no parent could tolerate that. Maybe you are just a heartless person. And if you are rationalizing this situation somehow, I feel bad for you.

There is zero need to separate children from their families.

They start by targeting immigrants. Then they move onto the next group of people they want out of the way. So thankful my ancestors and your ancestors Roy were not treated this way when they came to this country.

I have two children.  I tend to leave them at home when I commit crimes.

I also see children separated from their parents every day, both through the criminal justice system and via child welfare.  I represent parents routinely in child welfare / CPS cases.

People get separated from their children because of their choices all the time.  One of those choices is committing crimes.  The children should be treated well and housed appropriately, but the separation itself isn't the fault of the US.  We should be more upset with a system that for years has just overlooked the law. 

For years, Democrats and sympathetic Republicans have talked about their agreement in "securing the border", hiring of more Border Patrol agents, etc.  This was seen as a reasonable, more moderate position, rather than building a wall.  Well, what's the sense, if we're going to have open borders?  Our Border Patrol catches illegal immigrants, and then lets them go into the United States.  Illegal immigrants then learn that it's an automatic "get out of jail free" card if you're traveling with kids, so they knowingly decide to break our laws, putting their kids in peril, to get access to the US system.  The "catch and release" system is flawed on its face, and only encourages the illegal immigration that our government supposedly rejects.  It's open borders, just under a different name.

And, respectfully, you have no idea how my ancestors were treated.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. You want to enforce tough immigration then do it as family. Don’t separate people. We should be able to agree that we will not keep kids in child internment camps indefinitely and hidden away from public view.

You are right, I have no idea about your ancestors other than they probably started as immigrants much like mine. Mine came from Ireland during the potato famine. They were not sent back or put into camps. They worked hard and made something that added to our great country.

HHS separated a 10 year-old girl with Down Syndrome from her mother at the border.

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former Campaign Manager, then MADE FUN OF IT. How is this acceptable?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 19, 2018, 08:28:32 PM
The policy of separating children from their parents is terrible. It is an awful policy, and should be ended. America stands for something better, something more decent.

Trump has weakened our country in many ways. Sadly, this is one of them.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: td450 on June 19, 2018, 08:33:37 PM
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except “they” didn’t come for anybody here. “They” started prosecuting criminals.

So you condone separating families? Do you have children? Because no parent could tolerate that. Maybe you are just a heartless person. And if you are rationalizing this situation somehow, I feel bad for you.

There is zero need to separate children from their families.

They start by targeting immigrants. Then they move onto the next group of people they want out of the way. So thankful my ancestors and your ancestors Roy were not treated this way when they came to this country.

I have two children.  I tend to leave them at home when I commit crimes.

I also see children separated from their parents every day, both through the criminal justice system and via child welfare.  I represent parents routinely in child welfare / CPS cases.

People get separated from their children because of their choices all the time.  One of those choices is committing crimes.  The children should be treated well and housed appropriately, but the separation itself isn't the fault of the US.  We should be more upset with a system that for years has just overlooked the law. 

For years, Democrats and sympathetic Republicans have talked about their agreement in "securing the border", hiring of more Border Patrol agents, etc.  This was seen as a reasonable, more moderate position, rather than building a wall.  Well, what's the sense, if we're going to have open borders?  Our Border Patrol catches illegal immigrants, and then lets them go into the United States.  Illegal immigrants then learn that it's an automatic "get out of jail free" card if you're traveling with kids, so they knowingly decide to break our laws, putting their kids in peril, to get access to the US system.  The "catch and release" system is flawed on its face, and only encourages the illegal immigration that our government supposedly rejects.  It's open borders, just under a different name.

And, respectfully, you have no idea how my ancestors were treated.
I know you are smart enough to understand human behavior. Dismissing these people as criminals is a way to avoid the inherent difficulty of the situation. All laws are not equal in moral weight. We have never seen illegal immigration as a crime in the same class as acts of violence and cruelty, and we shouldn't.

There are a number of circumstances where the law cannot contain human desperation unless we let go of our decency. We can make certain things illegal, and there can and should be penalties, but if we insist as a culture that the desperate must comply without exception, we are going to create a lot of human damage, to them and to us.

In these situations, we are best off making sure there are consequences, but that we don't crush people. We can't really win here. The best we can do is to put up appropriate resistance and live with the human limitations.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller - Border policy
Post by: eja117 on June 19, 2018, 09:21:31 PM
For a long time I was concerned if we didn't have strong borders we could go the way of Rome when they could no longer defend themselves from the barbarians surrounding them. I felt you need to follow the law and give to God what is God's but also give to Rome what is Rome's, and I've lived my whole life trying to serve two masters this way. But it doesn't always work to serve two masters. People don't realize at one point a huge mistake Rome made was to take advantage of their neighbors. The Romans traded the Goths desperately needed food for the requested asylum from other barbarians, and also, in exchange, separated Gothic children from their families. This didn't show strength of the Romans, but rather weakness. It emboldened and angered their enemies and only a couple years later in battle they lost almost two thirds of their force and their emperor was killed. This policy does not serve God and it does not serve Rome. We are setting a trap of cruelty for ourselves.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Celtics4ever on June 19, 2018, 09:36:27 PM
Quote
The policy of separating children from their parents is terrible. It is an awful policy, and should be ended. America stands for something better, something more decent.

I think most agree it is terrible but quit pretending that America stands for better.   All it does is show how ignorant you are of our history.   We had genocide of the Indian, Slavery and even more brutal removal operations like Operation Wetback in the 1950s where we used the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

It is pretty clear that some folks in this thread are pretty ignorant regarding our dark history.  So forgive me if I laugh when you say what America stands for.

Quote
In these situations, we are best off making sure there are consequences, but that we don't crush people. We can't really win here. The best we can do is to put up appropriate resistance and live with the human limitations.

We could win but I often doubt we have to win to win like in the past.    In the past, we would have went to war with Mexico to make this stop.   That is what America stood for.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Impact_of_the_war_in_the_United_States

They would not stand a chance against us.   We are never going to do that, though, nor should we do that.  Reading these threads about what America stands for is very funny though.   How many here were home schooled?   I was not but some here seem to have a very white wash view of History.

Quote
For a long time I was concerned if we didn't have strong borders we could go the way of Rome when they could no longer defend themselves from the barbarians surrounding them. I felt you need to follow the law and give to God what is God's but also give to Rome what is Rome's, and I've lived my whole life trying to serve two masters this way. But it doesn't always work to serve two masters. People don't realize at one point a huge mistake Rome made was to take advantage of their neighbors. The Romans traded the Goths desperately needed food for the requested asylum from other barbarians, and also, in exchange, separated Gothic children from their families. This didn't show strength of the Romans, but rather weakness. It emboldened and angered their enemies and only a couple years later in battle they lost almost two thirds of their force and their emperor was killed. This policy does not serve God and it does not serve Rome. We are setting a trap of cruelty for ourselves.

Rome also let so many barbarians in their armies that they were no longer Roman and lacked Roman discipline.  This had a lot more to do with their fall than trading foods.  Again, lack of knowledge of history seems epidemic here, no offense.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: eja117 on June 19, 2018, 09:38:19 PM
Quote
The policy of separating children from their parents is terrible. It is an awful policy, and should be ended. America stands for something better, something more decent.

I think most agree it is terrible but quit pretending that America stands for better.   All it does is show how ignorant you are of our history.   We had genocide of the Indian, Slavery and even more brutal removal operations like Operation Wetback in the 1950s where we used the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

It is pretty clear that some folks in this thread are pretty ignorant regarding our dark history.  So forgive me if I laugh when you say what America stands for.

Quote
In these situations, we are best off making sure there are consequences, but that we don't crush people. We can't really win here. The best we can do is to put up appropriate resistance and live with the human limitations.

We could win but I often doubt we have to win to win like in the past.    In the past, we would have went to war with Mexico to make this stop.   That is what America stood for.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Impact_of_the_war_in_the_United_States

They would not stand a chance against us.   We are never going to do that, though, nor should we do that.  Reading these threads about what America stands for is very funny though.   How many here were home schooled?   I was not but some here seem to have a very white wash view of History.
I'll put the history of America up against any other country and say "You're welcome" to quite a few countries that enjoy their freedom these days.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Beat LA on June 19, 2018, 11:34:20 PM
Quote
The policy of separating children from their parents is terrible. It is an awful policy, and should be ended. America stands for something better, something more decent.

I think most agree it is terrible but quit pretending that America stands for better.   All it does is show how ignorant you are of our history.   We had genocide of the Indian, Slavery and even more brutal removal operations like Operation Wetback in the 1950s where we used the Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

It is pretty clear that some folks in this thread are pretty ignorant regarding our dark history.  So forgive me if I laugh when you say what America stands for.

So just because we've had such an atrocious track record, historically, doesn't mean that we can't change/aspire to be something much better?

Quote
In these situations, we are best off making sure there are consequences, but that we don't crush people. We can't really win here. The best we can do is to put up appropriate resistance and live with the human limitations.

We could win but I often doubt we have to win to win like in the past.    In the past, we would have went to war with Mexico to make this stop.   That is what America stood for.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Impact_of_the_war_in_the_United_States

They would not stand a chance against us.   We are never going to do that, though, nor should we do that.  Reading these threads about what America stands for is very funny though.   How many here were home schooled?   I was not but some here seem to have a very white wash view of History.[/quote]

Given that it should have been "gone" as opposed to "went" in that sentence, I wouldn't exactly go around throwing shade at the perceived, and respective, levels of education that have been attained by the members of this forum, to say the least, but whatever.

Besides, we simply don't have the manpower to occupy Mexico even if we wanted to invade, anyway, although I am hardly advocating for such, and as a result, our forces would just get bogged down in another unwinnable guerrilla war, as if those are actually winnable, anyway, and before long we'd leave with both a country and people, in ruin, as well as having to deal with the loss of still more American service men and women, not to mention the fact that the circumstances in terms of contemporary immigration between America and its southern neighbor aren't even remotely close to the events that led to the Mexican-American War, imo, as we're not even dealing with a Pancho Villa-like situation, here, lol ;D. Like not even close.

Quote
For a long time I was concerned if we didn't have strong borders we could go the way of Rome when they could no longer defend themselves from the barbarians surrounding them. I felt you need to follow the law and give to God what is God's but also give to Rome what is Rome's, and I've lived my whole life trying to serve two masters this way. But it doesn't always work to serve two masters. People don't realize at one point a huge mistake Rome made was to take advantage of their neighbors. The Romans traded the Goths desperately needed food for the requested asylum from other barbarians, and also, in exchange, separated Gothic children from their families. This didn't show strength of the Romans, but rather weakness. It emboldened and angered their enemies and only a couple years later in battle they lost almost two thirds of their force and their emperor was killed. This policy does not serve God and it does not serve Rome. We are setting a trap of cruelty for ourselves.

Rome also let so many barbarians in their armies that they were no longer Roman and lacked Roman discipline.  This had a lot more to do with their fall than trading foods.  Again, lack of knowledge of history seems epidemic here, no offense.[/quote]

Lol, in terms of "borders", the United States essentially won the geopolitical jackpot, although, much like Rome, we are an empire that is certainly in decline, imo, so there's that :-\.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: eja117 on June 19, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
Rome was an empire entirely of conquest so they took barbarians into their armies for a very very long time. Incorporating non Romans into their army around 362 AD was not much different than what they had done in 50BC, when they had plenty of discipline.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Beat LA on June 19, 2018, 11:54:37 PM
Rome was an empire entirely of conquest so they took barbarians into their armies for a very very long time. Incorporating non Romans into their army around 362 AD was not much different than what they had done in 50BC, when they had plenty of discipline.

Those "independent contractors" will get you every time, lol ;) ::) ;D.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: ScoobyDoo on June 20, 2018, 06:03:07 AM
I’ve never understood why all these other country’s problem magically become our responsibility to solve. The Mexican government should be prosecuted for crimes against its citizens. If you overlayed the US system of capitalism, law enforcement and innovative spirit they’d be a world power with all the assets they have. Instead it’s an abjectly corrupt, crime ridden place desperately lacking in hope  and opportunity. Very sad and shame on the Mexican government.

On our side our political class (left and right) are an embarrassment to the miracle that is the United States. At no time in human history have so many people had so much freedom and opportunity. Our political class just p---es all over it. They don’t respect it or protect it. They can’t negotiate a trade agreement to save their lives, their policies have us $20 trillion in debt and they couldn’t secure a table in a restaurant, let alone a border or a nation. They should all be fired for gross negligence and dereliction of duty. Good job guys - you’re all running around up in Washington patting yourselves on the back - at least when they’re not throwing political mud at each other like a bunch of four year olds

As for the border? Given today’s environment with Terrorism, MS13 and drug cartels and the rampant crime related to it we should basically hermetically seal the southern border. Who in their right mind would have a party at their house and leave the door open for anyone to enter and then have no idea where in the house all those people were? It’s insanity and the conversation has been so far down the wrong road for so long that everyone thinks the US is the collective ant-Christ for trying to impose some law and order at the border. 

Start with the basics fact that what’s illegal is illegal and work backward from there - it’s incredibly
simple.

The issues these people are experiencing at the border are are A) the fault of the Mexican ruling class
, B) the fault of the immigrants choosing to put themselves in these situations as a result of the failing policies of their politicians and C) the utterly useless US political class. The only real victim here is the miracle that is the United States and all the naturally born citizens living here in accordance with our laws.

Not s single person should ever enter this country again unless we’re saying who, how, where, when and why - period. Law and order first - everything else after that.




Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Greenback on June 20, 2018, 06:43:33 AM
https://encyclopedic.co.uk/nolte-media-admit-goal-is-to-replace-trump-voters-with-illegal-aliens/
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 20, 2018, 07:11:14 AM
https://encyclopedic.co.uk/nolte-media-admit-goal-is-to-replace-trump-voters-with-illegal-aliens/

The article itself is way too hysterical, but I think that’s a large part of why Democrats are so pro-illegal immigrant: ultimately, those illegal immigrants have legal children, who vote at least 3-to-1 Democrat. It’s one of the reasons that Democrats are becoming more a party of identity politics, and are abandoning the white working class.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: gouki88 on June 20, 2018, 07:22:27 AM
https://encyclopedic.co.uk/nolte-media-admit-goal-is-to-replace-trump-voters-with-illegal-aliens/

The article itself is way too hysterical, but I think that’s a large part of why Democrats are so pro-illegal immigrant: ultimately, those illegal immigrants have legal children, who vote at least 3-to-1 Democrat. It’s one of the reasons that Democrats are becoming more a party of identity politics, and are abandoning the white working class.
As Thomas Sowell said, politicians are first and foremost concerned with getting elected and getting re-elected. All other issues fall behind these
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: eja117 on June 20, 2018, 07:26:42 AM
https://encyclopedic.co.uk/nolte-media-admit-goal-is-to-replace-trump-voters-with-illegal-aliens/

The article itself is way too hysterical, but I think that’s a large part of why Democrats are so pro-illegal immigrant: ultimately, those illegal immigrants have legal children, who vote at least 3-to-1 Democrat. It’s one of the reasons that Democrats are becoming more a party of identity politics, and are abandoning the white working class.
I agree. It's voter fraud 18 years in the future
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Celtics4ever on June 20, 2018, 07:55:48 AM
Quote
Rome was an empire entirely of conquest so they took barbarians into their armies for a very very long time. Incorporating non Romans into their army around 362 AD was not much different than what they had done in 50BC, when they had plenty of discipline.

The difference is the barbarians starting losing whereas the Romans lost quit a few battles prior but they never gave up.  There is a big difference using them as Auxillaries and having primary legions and have the legions filled with them.   Once people quit caring about the cause or not fighting as much for the country they are bound to lose.

The military was their primary apparatus for control.   It also as you know chose leaders and desposed of them.

Quote
The Roman army, long garrisoned along the imperial frontiers, had begun to decay. Many of the frontier posts had become large towns with large civilian contingents within them. Training and discipline declined. By the second century not more than one percent of the Roman army was comprised of native Italians, the rest being drawn from other nationalities of the empire still strongly socialized to Roman values and methods. By the middle of the third century, however, the army had become hollow, and the German tribes broke through in great numbers to settle large tracts of imperial land.
The Roman response was to reorganize the army with militia troops, the limitani, garrison the forts, and hold strong horse-born reserves at key garrisons within the empire that could rush to a point of penetration and stop the enemy advance. Most of the army by this time was comprised of barbarian soldiers in the pay of Rome. As Roman reliance upon these barbarian military forces grew, the organizational structure and values of the legion began to erode until, by the 4th century, the legions were no longer organized along traditional Roman lines. Instead, they reflected barbarian weapons, tactics, values, and were commanded by their own tribal chiefs. The fiction that they were paid allies of Rome continued until the 5th century when renewed waves of barbarian invasions crashed over Europe, effectively putting an end to the Roman military system.

The gradual barbarization of the legions had an enormous impact on Roman military organization. The decline in the administrative and support structure of the legion led to its replacement with a number of barbarian military practices. In effect, the tribal military forces within the empire became a state within a state that was beyond the power of the central Roman state apparatus to control

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0014.htm

Polls that I read right now  66% are against separating families.  I could not find a more recent one on the bottom one.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/immigration-trump-approval/index.html

But polls also indicate that a majority in both parties favor securing the border.

https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-voters-want-border-security-path-citizenship

Quote
Specifically, 61 percent think that current border security is inadequate, and more than half of Americans — 54 percent — support a physical barrier along the southern U.S. border.  A stunning 65 percent of Americans support a DACA deal that ends chain migration, eliminates the random visa lottery and secures the border with a wall. Only 35 percent of Americans did not agree.

Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the visa lottery which allows immigrants to be picked at random for entry into the country.
 

In fact, nearly 80 percent of Americans believe that immigration should be based on merit and skills, not just family ties.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/372152-new-polling-proves-president-trump-is-right-americans-are-dreamers-too

Bottom line, America is against the separating families but it seems the majority favor securing the border.  The seperating families thing will get fixed with it the Dems have the edge but if it is a lot of people will shift back as most favor security.

I just hope we get some common sense immigration reform out of this issue.   It is time, to do it.

Quote
many people had so much freedom and opportunity. Our political class just p---es all over it. They don’t respect it or protect it. They can’t negotiate a trade agreement to save their lives, their policies have us $20 trillion in debt and they couldn’t secure a table in a restaurant, let alone a border or a nation. They should all be fired for gross negligence and dereliction of duty. Good job guys - you’re all running around up in Washington patting yourselves on the back - at least when they’re not throwing political mud at each other like a bunch of four year olds

I could not agree more and as you can see folks still favor the left and right with the government getting no results.  TP.   Folks are almost brainwashed by their respective parties.   I think the thing I hate most about the political class is an apaling lack of courage to stand for something and then take action.   They are more concerned with staying in power.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 20, 2018, 08:31:54 AM
Quote
Polls that I read right now  66% are against separating families.  I could not find a more recent one on the bottom one.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/immigration-trump-approval/index.html

But polls also indicate that a majority in both parties favor securing the border.

https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-voters-want-border-security-path-citizenship

That’s the rub. I’m appalled by the “catch and release” (into the United States) policies. Zero tolerance is exactly how we should be securing our border.

But, going beyond that, I’m honestly not sure how to achieve the most humane way of returning people to their home countries. Is it allowing families to stay together in detention centers? If so, allow that.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 20, 2018, 09:31:13 AM
A few links for the morning:

Former ICE director says hundreds or thousands of separated kids will likely never be reunited with their parents. (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/former-ice-director-some-migrant-family-separations-are-permanent-n884391)

Lawyers and doctors allowed to tour a "tender care" (small child) facility report rooms full of hysterical, inconsolable toddlers.  (https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e?)

Michigan government agency reports being sent children as young as 3 months old. (https://www.michigan.gov/mdcr/0,4613,7-138--471110--,00.html)


Just to, once again, avoid saying what's actually on my mind, I'll ask - how does the government keep track of children too young to know their parents' names or their own? Any established system at all? Or are we just kinda winging it?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: indeedproceed on June 20, 2018, 09:48:33 AM
Just to, once again, avoid saying what's actually on my mind, I'll ask -

Brings up the question of how do you even have rational dialogue about this? I can't hear, 'This is a rule of law issue' or 'We take children away from parents all the time who commit crimes', or honestly anything other than, 'Yes, we need to stop doing this to children, now'.

I don't think an action by the united states has left me feeling more angry and ashamed in my lifetime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrt7q6QKF5o

Corey Lewandowski....I don't think I've ever wanted to fight a stranger more in my life.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Vermont Green on June 20, 2018, 10:23:27 AM
Bottom line, America is against the separating families but it seems the majority favor securing the border.  The seperating families thing will get fixed with it the Dems have the edge but if it is a lot of people will shift back as most favor security.

See this is my point.  We all agree.  This is common sense.  We should be discussing the logistics of securing the boarder; fence vs. surveillance, whatever, but instead, everyone is shouting at each other and referencing Hitler and the Romans.

Resolving immigration policy is complicated but not an existential threat to our country.  it is just a messy policy issue.  There has been immigration, legal and otherwise for literally hundreds of years.  Gangs and drug dealers are a problem but will be a problem with or without illegal immigration and all this divisive rhetoric.

The divisiveness that Trump is fostering is an existential threat to our democracy.  His statements are patent lies, every day.  Oh but he is a story teller, just Trump being Trump.  We can not get used to this and accept it as the norm.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 10:32:50 AM
That’s the rub. I’m appalled by the “catch and release” (into the United States) policies. Zero tolerance is exactly how we should be securing our border.
Why, because in the 21st century it's impossible to account for people unless you keep them in a pen like animals? Or because aliens coming from Mexico, deportable or otherwise, are "malingerers" until proven otherwise?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 20, 2018, 10:46:42 AM
I just don’t see how this is something positive. It is disappointing, disgusting and heartless. The political overtones are all over it.

You want to deport or send illegals back then do it as a family. I mean some kids are being sent as far away as Michigan. That is unacceptable.

These tent cities that separate families cost millions more than just keeping families together. Trump and his goons are using children as bargaining chips to build a wall or to spread his white nationalism.

I love my country but I am ashamed of the people running it and those that support this kind of abuse. I look at my own 3 year old and imagine her in a cage, by herself, screaming for her family. Just makes me nauseous.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 20, 2018, 10:51:38 AM
That’s the rub. I’m appalled by the “catch and release” (into the United States) policies. Zero tolerance is exactly how we should be securing our border.
Why, because in the 21st century it's impossible to account for people unless you keep them in a pen like animals? Or because aliens coming from Mexico, deportable or otherwise, are "malingerers" until proven otherwise?

Should we inject them with LoJack chips? Give them all ankle bracelets?

If you don’t want to be detained, immigrate legally. Avoiding breaking the law isn’t hard.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 11:06:03 AM
That’s the rub. I’m appalled by the “catch and release” (into the United States) policies. Zero tolerance is exactly how we should be securing our border.
Why, because in the 21st century it's impossible to account for people unless you keep them in a pen like animals? Or because aliens coming from Mexico, deportable or otherwise, are "malingerers" until proven otherwise?

Should we inject them with LoJack chips? Give them all ankle bracelets?

If you don’t want to be detained, immigrate legally. Avoiding breaking the law isn’t hard.
An ankle monitor costs $6,000 a year. Putting a person in prison, $20,000. An unaccompanied minor in a facility was estimated at $250 per day in 2014. So yeah, I'd absolutely give them all ankle bracelets before I start rounding them up into prison-like facilities. In fact, that has already been done in the past.

There's a reason why no other administration had made it a priority to criminally prosecute these people unless drug smuggling, violence, or other obvious criminal activity was involved: the numbers don't add up, it's unnecessarily cruel, and they were decent enough not to make brown people poster children for all that is wrong in America.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 20, 2018, 11:08:35 AM
The Trump Admin's policy is cruel and disgusting.

Is it breaking the law? Sure. Entering the country illegally breaks a law.* But we as a society can condone such laws or not. The idea that just because its a law makes it okay doesn't fly. This is a policy that is being pursued for political reasons. Period.

For example, it is also against the law to engage in voter suppression. Apparently this is what Cambridge Analytica did. The very foundation of our democracy was attacked! Why isn't the administration expending lots of energy addressing this? After all, its a law. It was broken. The reason is that it is not politically expedient for this administration to pursue. Even though the law was broken.

So, the idea that all of the family separation is okay because of "law" just doesn't wash.

*Side question, is it considering breaking the law if entering the US for political asylum?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 20, 2018, 11:12:50 AM
That’s the rub. I’m appalled by the “catch and release” (into the United States) policies. Zero tolerance is exactly how we should be securing our border.
Why, because in the 21st century it's impossible to account for people unless you keep them in a pen like animals? Or because aliens coming from Mexico, deportable or otherwise, are "malingerers" until proven otherwise?

Should we inject them with LoJack chips? Give them all ankle bracelets?

If you don’t want to be detained, immigrate legally. Avoiding breaking the law isn’t hard.

That is easy to say when you have no idea what kind of lives these people are living. And even your reasoning doesn’t justify splitting up families and shipping infants and toddlers to other states. That is cruelty. If you don’t think it is then I don’t know what to say.

When supervisors at ICE say there is a good chance thousands of kids will never be reunited with their families, then the policy and enforcement is flawed and wrong.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 11:17:26 AM
So, the idea that all of the family separation is okay because of "law" just doesn't wash.
The current administration is just "enforcing the law in the books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders)".
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Erik on June 20, 2018, 11:17:36 AM
I'll admit that I didn't know too much about this issue in terms of the details, but this is what I understand:

1) Seeking asylum can be done by going into one of the border patrol agencies and requesting asylum. Often the immigrants are illegally entering the country and then seeking asylum only after getting caught. It somewhat puts into doubt whether or not they're actually seeking asylum or if it's "Plan B."

2) The reason that the children are separated from their parents is because of a law that was passed/ruled on during the Obama era in the 9th circuit court restricting the time that children can be detained. It was actually done *for their benefit*. Since the parents are seeking asylum, it takes a long process and there is a limit to which the kids can be detained. The reason why this is being brought out now is because we're actually enforcing the law now. Congress is the one that should fix this, not Trump. One thing that Congress could do is change the law to state that the children either have the option to stay with their parents throughout the process OR be taken in by a government caretaker (the required now). I have no reason to believe that Trump wouldn't sign the law considering he tweeted "CHANGE THE LAW."

3) Illegally entering the country is a misdemeanor, *the first time*. Subsequent entry is a felony.

These are all what I believe to be facts. Please correct me where I am wrong.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 20, 2018, 11:19:09 AM
That’s the rub. I’m appalled by the “catch and release” (into the United States) policies. Zero tolerance is exactly how we should be securing our border.
Why, because in the 21st century it's impossible to account for people unless you keep them in a pen like animals? Or because aliens coming from Mexico, deportable or otherwise, are "malingerers" until proven otherwise?

Should we inject them with LoJack chips? Give them all ankle bracelets?

If you don’t want to be detained, immigrate legally. Avoiding breaking the law isn’t hard.
An ankle monitor costs $6,000 a year. Putting a person in prison, $20,000. An unaccompanied minor in a facility was estimated at $250 per day in 2014. So yeah, I'd absolutely give them all ankle bracelets before I start rounding them up into prison-like facilities. In fact, that has already been done in the past.

There's a reason why no other administration had made it a priority to criminally prosecute these people unless drug smuggling, violence, or other obvious criminal activity was involved: the numbers don't add up, it's unnecessarily cruel, and they were decent enough not to make brown people poster children for all that is wrong in America.

How much does it cost to pick someone up when they remove the bracelet or otherwise flee?

And why should the US support that person pending hearing? Why not Mexico or their home country?

And then there’s this:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2017/09/21/decades-later-electronic-monitoring-of-offenders-is-still-prone-to-failure/
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 20, 2018, 11:19:13 AM
This is just a money making scheme by private companies. Incarceration is big business. Incarcerating children is a new market.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 20, 2018, 11:30:34 AM
I'll admit that I didn't know too much about this issue in terms of the details, but this is what I understand:

1) Seeking asylum can be done by going into one of the border patrol agencies and requesting asylum. Often the immigrants are illegally entering the country and then seeking asylum only after getting caught. It somewhat puts into doubt whether or not they're actually seeking asylum or if it's "Plan B."

2) The reason that the children are separated from their parents is because of a law that was passed/ruled on during the Obama era in the 9th circuit court restricting the time that children can be detained. It was actually done *for their benefit*. Since the parents are seeking asylum, it takes a long process and there is a limit to which the kids can be detained. The reason why this is being brought out now is because we're actually enforcing the law now. Congress is the one that should fix this, not Trump. One thing that Congress could do is change the law to state that the children either have the option to stay with their parents throughout the process OR be taken in by a government caretaker (the required now). I have no reason to believe that Trump wouldn't sign the law considering he tweeted "CHANGE THE LAW."

3) Illegally entering the country is a misdemeanor, *the first time*. Subsequent entry is a felony.

These are all what I believe to be facts. Please correct me where I am wrong.

You have facts and opinions mixed in here, but largely correct. e.g., you make it sound like Trump hates this policy, but has no choice. That's not true. He can order that there be no separations. And the idea of using Trump's tweets to indicate what Trump will or won't do is not a good basis for a "fact". e.g., "Mexico will pay for the wall" Remember that one? ;)

it is also worth pointing out that this is an issue that the Obama administration struggled with as well, but ultimately decided against separation of parents from children in most cases.

Here's my opinion (not fact): the separation of children that is happening at the border right now is reprehensible and disgusting. Thankfully, people on both sides of the political aisle are calling it what it is (reprehensible and disgusting).
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 20, 2018, 11:31:28 AM
Also of interest: this is a thread from someone on twitter (I don't know anything about him) listing all the faith based groups who have come out against the Trump Administrations policy of separation of children:

https://twitter.com/jackmjenkins/status/1007655921365995521

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 11:31:46 AM
1) Seeking asylum can be done by going into one of the border patrol agencies and requesting asylum. Often the immigrants are illegally entering the country and then seeking asylum only after getting caught. It somewhat puts into doubt whether or not they're actually seeking asylum or if it's "Plan B."
The law allows for people to seek asylum at any point regardless of their legal status in the country.

2) The One thing that Congress could do is change the law to state that the children either have the option to stay with their parents throughout the process OR be taken in by a government caretaker (the required now). I have no reason to believe that Trump wouldn't sign the law considering he tweeted "CHANGE THE LAW."
This is not what the law requires. The law mandates that children have cannot be held past 20 days, and at that point have to be released to (a) a relative, (b) a person designated by their parents, or (c) if neither a or b is an option, to HHS. The law does not mandate, in any form or shape, that you should separate children from their parents at apprehension and ferry them a halfway across the country within the next 24 hours (this actually happened). Make no mistake, this policy is intended to be an elaborate form of torture.

And since we're talking about the Flores settlement, it's instructive to know that it was a pretty old document that  originally intended to cover unaccompanied minors (that was the case at hand). Since the word "unaccompanied" wasn't in the text of the settlement, the recent court ruling determined that it applies to all minors equally. Of course, the administration is covering all their bases here by forcefully making all minors unaccompanied right away, so that point is moot.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Erik on June 20, 2018, 11:47:43 AM
I'll admit that I didn't know too much about this issue in terms of the details, but this is what I understand:

1) Seeking asylum can be done by going into one of the border patrol agencies and requesting asylum. Often the immigrants are illegally entering the country and then seeking asylum only after getting caught. It somewhat puts into doubt whether or not they're actually seeking asylum or if it's "Plan B."

2) The reason that the children are separated from their parents is because of a law that was passed/ruled on during the Obama era in the 9th circuit court restricting the time that children can be detained. It was actually done *for their benefit*. Since the parents are seeking asylum, it takes a long process and there is a limit to which the kids can be detained. The reason why this is being brought out now is because we're actually enforcing the law now. Congress is the one that should fix this, not Trump. One thing that Congress could do is change the law to state that the children either have the option to stay with their parents throughout the process OR be taken in by a government caretaker (the required now). I have no reason to believe that Trump wouldn't sign the law considering he tweeted "CHANGE THE LAW."

3) Illegally entering the country is a misdemeanor, *the first time*. Subsequent entry is a felony.

These are all what I believe to be facts. Please correct me where I am wrong.

it is also worth pointing out that this is an issue that the Obama administration struggled with as well, but ultimately decided against separation of parents from children in most cases.

But the children are moved to HHS once the parents are arrested, so in order to not separate the parents from the children in the previous administrations, you have to let the parent go free. That doesn't seem like a very good border policy to me. The reason this is even an outcry is because of the duration of the asylum process. It's not a 1 day adjudication anymore. It's 20 days.

1) Seeking asylum can be done by going into one of the border patrol agencies and requesting asylum. Often the immigrants are illegally entering the country and then seeking asylum only after getting caught. It somewhat puts into doubt whether or not they're actually seeking asylum or if it's "Plan B."
The law allows for people to seek asylum at any point regardless of their legal status in the country.

But what would you think would happen if the person who is illegally entering here did not get caught? Do you think they would go ask for asylum? Before responding "there's no way you could know," let's be real here. If they're eventually going to ask for asylum because they want to be legal citizens of the country, why didn't they just go to the border patrol office in the first place? It's pretty clear that this is Plan B.


2) The One thing that Congress could do is change the law to state that the children either have the option to stay with their parents throughout the process OR be taken in by a government caretaker (the required now). I have no reason to believe that Trump wouldn't sign the law considering he tweeted "CHANGE THE LAW."
This is not what the law requires. The law mandates that children have cannot be held past 20 days, and at that point have to be released to (a) a relative, (b) a person designated by their parents, or (c) if neither a or b is an option, to HHS. The law does not mandate, in any form or shape, that you should separate children from their parents at apprehension and ferry them a halfway across the country within the next 24 hours (this actually happened). Make no mistake, this policy is intended to be an elaborate form of torture.

Correct, I misspoke. Caretaker in the form of a relative, friend, OR HHS. The law change I'm referring to would be that the parents can choose to just keep the kid with them for the entire 20 days+.

And since we're talking about the Flores settlement, it's instructive to know that it was a pretty old document that  originally intended to cover unaccompanied minors (that was the case at hand). Since the word "unaccompanied" wasn't in the text of the settlement, the recent court ruling determined that it applies to all minors equally. Of course, the administration is covering all their bases here by forcefully making all minors unaccompanied right away, so that point is moot.

Well they are entering the country illegally. Are you saying that they should not be prosecuted at all?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 12:05:24 PM
But what would you think would happen if the person who is illegally entering here did not get caught? Do you think they would go ask for asylum? Before responding "there's no way you could know," let's be real here. If they're eventually going to ask for asylum because they want to be legal citizens of the country, why didn't they just go to the border patrol office in the first place? It's pretty clear that this is Plan B.
So you're ok with second-guessing the law in this case, but not in the case when the administration goes out of its way to grease the wheels of questionable family separations?

But to answer your particular question, one possible reason is in order not to be turned away by Border Patrol (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylum-central-america/).


Correct, I misspoke. Caretaker in the form of a relative, friend, OR HHS. The law change I'm referring to would be that the parents can choose to just keep the kid with them for the entire 20 days.
But the fact remains that even as we speak, there isn't a legal reason why they shouldn't be able to. Immediate separation at the border is not a legal requirement, it's something the administration chose to do as a mode of operation.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 20, 2018, 12:12:17 PM
I guess Trump just stated he will sign something into effect in a little while that will end the separation of children from their families at the border.

This is after blaming Democrats for everything going on:


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 It’s the Democrats fault, they won’t give us the votes needed to pass good immigration legislation. They want open borders, which breeds horrible crime. Republicans want security. But I am working on something - it never ends!

9:41 AM - Jun 20, 2018

Strangely, it was Trump's decision to enforce the laws at the border to their "by the letter of the law" extreme but sure, that's the fault of Dems. SMH. ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 20, 2018, 12:19:20 PM
Great news that Trump is doing something:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/20/white-house-considering-executive-action-to-prevent-family-separations-at-border.html

Quote
The White House is considering executive action to allow children to stay with parents caught crossing the border illegally, Fox News has learned -- a step that could avoid the family separations that have triggered a national outcry and political crisis for Republicans.

The action under consideration would allow children to stay in detention with parents for an extended period of time. This comes as congressional Republicans scramble to draft legislation to address the same issue, but face challenges mustering the votes.

Hopefully ASAP.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 12:23:23 PM
In other news Homeland Sec tried to have a work dinner at a Mexican restaurant in DC... it didn't go all that well.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44550252
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Erik on June 20, 2018, 12:27:17 PM
But what would you think would happen if the person who is illegally entering here did not get caught? Do you think they would go ask for asylum? Before responding "there's no way you could know," let's be real here. If they're eventually going to ask for asylum because they want to be legal citizens of the country, why didn't they just go to the border patrol office in the first place? It's pretty clear that this is Plan B.
So you're ok with second-guessing the law in this case, but not in the case when the administration goes out of its way to grease the wheels of questionable family separations?

But to answer your particular question, one possible reason is in order not to be turned away by Border Patrol (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylum-central-america/).

I don't fully understand what you mean "goes out of its way." Are you suggesting that had this not been the law, that they'd be doing it anyways?


Correct, I misspoke. Caretaker in the form of a relative, friend, OR HHS. The law change I'm referring to would be that the parents can choose to just keep the kid with them for the entire 20 days.
But the fact remains that even as we speak, there isn't a legal reason why they shouldn't be able to. Immediate separation at the border is not a legal requirement, it's something the administration chose to do as a mode of operation.

From what I understand, the alternative is to release the children and parents into the country pending asylum claim. That seems like a pretty easy way to illegally enter the country to me.

Would you even be OK with a system that detains the adult & child together for the duration of the asylum claim, or is your MO to let them freely go into our country? If it's the former, I would agree with you. If it's the latter, it seems to me like you're using this issue to get to your real desire: open borders.




Great news that Trump is doing something:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/20/white-house-considering-executive-action-to-prevent-family-separations-at-border.html

Quote
The White House is considering executive action to allow children to stay with parents caught crossing the border illegally, Fox News has learned -- a step that could avoid the family separations that have triggered a national outcry and political crisis for Republicans.

The action under consideration would allow children to stay in detention with parents for an extended period of time. This comes as congressional Republicans scramble to draft legislation to address the same issue, but face challenges mustering the votes.

Hopefully ASAP.

This actually is not great news even though the outcome is ideal. Executive action is not meant to be a replacement for congress doing their work. This is why we have a constitution with checks and balances. The executive branch is not supposed to have this amount of power.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 20, 2018, 12:40:33 PM
Great news that Trump is doing something:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/20/white-house-considering-executive-action-to-prevent-family-separations-at-border.html

Quote
The White House is considering executive action to allow children to stay with parents caught crossing the border illegally, Fox News has learned -- a step that could avoid the family separations that have triggered a national outcry and political crisis for Republicans.

The action under consideration would allow children to stay in detention with parents for an extended period of time. This comes as congressional Republicans scramble to draft legislation to address the same issue, but face challenges mustering the votes.

Hopefully ASAP.

Even though Congress should be the one acting, I'm completely on board with this.  Hopefully special interest groups don't sue to stop its enactment.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 20, 2018, 12:45:48 PM
I guess Trump just stated he will sign something into effect in a little while that will end the separation of children from their families at the border.

This is after blaming Democrats for everything going on:


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 It’s the Democrats fault, they won’t give us the votes needed to pass good immigration legislation. They want open borders, which breeds horrible crime. Republicans want security. But I am working on something - it never ends!

9:41 AM - Jun 20, 2018

Strangely, it was Trump's decision to enforce the laws at the border to their "by the letter of the law" extreme but sure, that's the fault of Dems. SMH. ::) ::) ::)

It's not the Democrats' fault.  It's the fault of both parties -- both extremists and moderates -- who have left immigration unaddressed for decades.

I will say that whoever first instituted the "catch and release" policy, and each and every administration and Attorney General who has endorsed it, has plenty of culpability.  Our policy should have been zero tolerance from the start.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 12:48:12 PM
This actually is not great news even though the outcome is ideal. Executive action is not meant to be a replacement for congress doing their work. This is why we have a constitution with checks and balances. The executive branch is not supposed to have this amount of power.
I agree, but it might still be better to have this than a hastily put together bill where a common sense measure is held hostage by other unsavory policies. Congress can (and should) pass a well-though bill down the road.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 12:53:17 PM
Our policy should have been zero tolerance from the start.
So what's the end game here? Right now, you pretty much sentence everyone to time served and send them back. You really think putting all of those people in American jails is a workable solution?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 20, 2018, 12:53:17 PM
You want to be tougher on illegal immigration that is great. Just don’t separate families. Send them home together. Hopefully this reunites families ASAP
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Erik on June 20, 2018, 12:58:14 PM
Our policy should have been zero tolerance from the start.
So what's the end game here? Right now, you pretty much sentence everyone to time served and send them back. You really think putting all of those people in American jails is a workable solution?

The wall is theoretically supposed to be the solution so that these people don't even make it to our side to be prosecuted. Increased border security could also work to deter attempts. The goal is to limit the amount that make it across and prosecute those who do.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 01:17:17 PM
Our policy should have been zero tolerance from the start.
So what's the end game here? Right now, you pretty much sentence everyone to time served and send them back. You really think putting all of those people in American jails is a workable solution?

The wall is theoretically supposed to be the solution so that these people don't even make it to our side to be prosecuted. Increased border security could also work to deter attempts. The goal is to limit the amount that make it across and prosecute those who do.
And practically, there's already a wall in the southwest and that isn't doing much.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 20, 2018, 02:31:11 PM
Just to, once again, avoid saying what's actually on my mind, I'll ask -

Brings up the question of how do you even have rational dialogue about this? I can't hear, 'This is a rule of law issue' or 'We take children away from parents all the time who commit crimes', or honestly anything other than, 'Yes, we need to stop doing this to children, now'.

It's extremely difficult. The ability to blow off or rationalize the suffering of children - not even the garden variety stuff that unfortunately happens constantly, but suffering created by our government wholly by choice - as others have said it's not a difference of opinion but a major difference of values.

It's also not lost on me that no one supporting this seems to know or care how the government could keep track of all these kids, many too young to talk or know any identifying info, and ensure their reunion. Nor that the same people who are totally fine with systematic severing of families by the government at tremendous cost generally believe the same government is too incompetent to run a two car parade and that spending is out of control. It says a lot. An awful lot. Suffice to say I have more respect for the Stephen Millers who can admit this is cruelty for cruelty's sake than those who invent PC euphemisms and comforting rationalizations for what they're standing behind.


Quote
I don't think an action by the united states has left me feeling more angry and ashamed in my lifetime.

Steel yourself, it's going to get worse before it gets better. All that dehumanizing "rapists" "animals" "s-hole countries" "infested" "breeding" language...history tells us what sort of stuff that tends to precede. Most of the right and quite a few independents are moving very rapidly toward the back half of "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"


Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrt7q6QKF5o

Corey Lewandowski....I don't think I've ever wanted to fight a stranger more in my life.

That's Harvard Fellow Corey Lewandowski to you. At least he didn't assault any women this time. But it's as tidy an encapsulation of the utter lack of empathy that underlies support for this as you'll ever see.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 20, 2018, 03:29:19 PM
Posted twice to this thread, and it disappeared each time. Can't recover it now. No PMs or anything to indicate it was intentionally removed. Not in my posted message history either.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 20, 2018, 03:37:59 PM
Good to see children will now not be separated from parents....but man...the hard work begins now trying to match kids back to their parents. Really going to be tedious. I do not want to see kids slip through the cracks.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 03:43:52 PM
Posted twice to this thread, and it disappeared each time. Can't recover it now. No PMs or anything to indicate it was intentionally removed. Not in my posted message history either.
I've found out that  your posts can absolutely get removed without notice of any kind.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 03:45:27 PM
Good to see children will now not be separated from parents....but man...the hard work begins now trying to match kids back to their parents. Really going to be tedious. I do not want to see kids slip through the cracks.
Added Bonus: The immigration cases of adults and families can be expedited. The cases of unaccompanied minors cannot; adults can also be deported without their children.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 20, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
Posted twice to this thread, and it disappeared each time. Can't recover it now. No PMs or anything to indicate it was intentionally removed. Not in my posted message history either.
I've found out that  your posts can absolutely get removed without notice of any kind.

I saw it go through both times, then checking later, its gone. I don't even think there was anything abnormally inflammatory about it. I'd love to get it back.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 20, 2018, 04:05:42 PM
Posted twice to this thread, and it disappeared each time. Can't recover it now. No PMs or anything to indicate it was intentionally removed. Not in my posted message history either.
I've found out that  your posts can absolutely get removed without notice of any kind.

And your thread titles edited to reflect the preferred characterizations of people with the power to do so.


If anyone's interested here's the executive order changing the policy that doesn't exist but is also totally Obama's terrible policy and also a good policy that Trump made and also something only Congress could change:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/)

It was 404'ed for awhile because our wise leadership can't spell "separation".

So we'll now be detaining adults and kids together, at least in theory. This:

Quote from: Dean Emeritus of Trump University
It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources

seems like it has loopholes you could drive a truck through. Also seems to define families in a way where illegal aliens with citizen children aren't covered. And of course managed to squeeze a good bit of lying and fingerpointing but what's new?

Hopeful we can manage to get the taken kids back to their families ASAP, but getting ready for the inevitable "oops we might've lost some kids" stories in a couple weeks.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 20, 2018, 04:10:15 PM
Posted twice to this thread, and it disappeared each time. Can't recover it now. No PMs or anything to indicate it was intentionally removed. Not in my posted message history either.
I've found out that  your posts can absolutely get removed without notice of any kind.

And your thread titles edited to reflect the preferred characterizations of people with the power to do so.


If anyone's interested here's the executive order changing the policy that doesn't exist but is also totally Obama's terrible policy and also a good policy that Trump made and also something only Congress could change:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/)

It was 404'ed for awhile because our wise leadership can't spell "separation".

So we'll now be detaining adults and kids together, at least in theory. This:

Quote from: Dean Emeritus of Trump University
It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources

seems like it has loopholes you could drive a truck through. Also managed to squeeze a good bit of lying and fingerpointing but what's new? Hopeful we can manage to get the taken kids back to their families ASAP, but getting ready for the inevitable "oops we might've lost some kids" stories in a couple weeks.

Trump is such a clown. Burned down the house and is now trying to get credit for putting the fire out.

Trying to put these people back together is going to be a mess....that Trump created.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 20, 2018, 04:11:48 PM
Quote
It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.

Having passive-aggressive jabs at Congress in official Presidential executive action would have been funny if it wasn't so SAD!(tm).
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 20, 2018, 04:21:34 PM
Quote
And your thread titles edited to reflect the preferred characterizations of people with the power to do so.

Quote
I've found out that  your posts can absolutely get removed without notice of any kind.

Yes to both. Posts that violate our rules get deleted, and misleading thread titles get edited.  The “notice” is our rules page.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 20, 2018, 04:23:33 PM
Quote
It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.

Having passive-aggressive jabs at Congress in official Presidential executive action would have been funny if it wasn't so SAD!(tm).

Funny if not so sad is the whole theme for this administration...
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Celtics4ever on June 20, 2018, 04:38:11 PM
Everyone should be disappointed with Congress and the last couple of presidents who did nothing to address immigration.   Kick the can down the road is the norm these days.

I think this immigration stuff is bad.   The media seemed to prioritize it so the media does not have report on the IG report.   Also, as usual Russian Bots are trying to divide us and making this even worse.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-trolls-meddling-us-immigration-controversy-top-gop/story?id=56032588

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/20/russian-internet-trolls-stoking-family-separation-/
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 20, 2018, 04:51:02 PM
Posted twice to this thread, and it disappeared each time. Can't recover it now. No PMs or anything to indicate it was intentionally removed. Not in my posted message history either.
I've found out that  your posts can absolutely get removed without notice of any kind.

And your thread titles edited to reflect the preferred characterizations of people with the power to do so.


If anyone's interested here's the executive order changing the policy that doesn't exist but is also totally Obama's terrible policy and also a good policy that Trump made and also something only Congress could change:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/)

It was 404'ed for awhile because our wise leadership can't spell "separation".

So we'll now be detaining adults and kids together, at least in theory. This:

Quote from: Dean Emeritus of Trump University
It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources

seems like it has loopholes you could drive a truck through. Also seems to define families in a way where illegal aliens with citizen children aren't covered. And of course managed to squeeze a good bit of lying and fingerpointing but what's new?

Hopeful we can manage to get the taken kids back to their families ASAP, but getting ready for the inevitable "oops we might've lost some kids" stories in a couple weeks.


Well, no idea what in my post warranted removal, didn't seem that out of line to anything else around here.

To recap:
1. It is disingenuous to say that a person is politically pro-human rights just so that the would be sufferers of human rights abuses vote for them. Of course victims of human rights abuses are not going to vote for the ones who would like to continue human rights abuses.

2. To hide behind the veil of 'protecting the white working class' is dishonest. It's protecting the white class; if someone was really interested in protecting the working class they wouldn't try to promote the wealth gap, promote corporate power, promote corporate tax cuts, gut medicaid, gut medicare, gut social security, gut family planning, torpedo healthcare, gut unions, etc, at every possible turn. You know, all the things that help the (white, brown, male, female) working class.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Beat LA on June 20, 2018, 10:31:11 PM
I guess Trump just stated he will sign something into effect in a little while that will end the separation of children from their families at the border.

This is after blaming Democrats for everything going on:


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 It’s the Democrats fault, they won’t give us the votes needed to pass good immigration legislation. They want open borders, which breeds horrible crime. Republicans want security. But I am working on something - it never ends!

9:41 AM - Jun 20, 2018

Strangely, it was Trump's decision to enforce the laws at the border to their "by the letter of the law" extreme but sure, that's the fault of Dems. SMH. ::) ::) ::)

Dems the breaks, man ;) ::) ;D.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 21, 2018, 08:34:26 AM
Peter Fonda is showing that he is as vile as any member of the Trump administration:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/secret-service-eyeing-peter-fonda-tweet-putting-barron-trump-cage-pedophiles-212809223.html
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 21, 2018, 09:46:59 AM
So the Trump goon squad will not reunite kids already separated from families? My god there is a special place in hell for him, Miller and the rest of these disgusting people he so calls leads
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Emmette Bryant on June 21, 2018, 10:56:19 AM
This is pretty funny.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-miller-great-grandfather-naturalization_us_5b2ba35ae4b0040e27403e42
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 21, 2018, 11:10:54 AM
Facts on the roughly 10 year decline in illegal border crossings:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: chambers on June 21, 2018, 11:15:59 AM
Just a stain of a man.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/stephen-miller-duke-donald-trump/amp
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 21, 2018, 01:03:00 PM
So since the EO was signed:

- There are no plans to try and reunite the children already taken by the government, and HHS and DHS appear to be fighting over whose responsibility that would even be. This seems very likely to be Phase I of the "oops we lost some kids" stories.

- Some legal experts are saying the EO is likely to be struck down by the courts. I can't claim to have any idea if it's accurate but the direct contradiction of the Flores settlement seems very legally problematic.

- One official reports the Feds are no longer prosecuting misdemeanor border crossings for migrants with children, until they have enough capacity. Some charges seem to have been abruptly dropped. A DOJ spokeswoman then contradicted this, saying that zero tolerance remains fully in effect.

So yeah, nobody really knows what's going on yet. Almost like it's all an ad hoc, poorly considered and disorganized approach to the handling of large numbers of children.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: mqtcelticsfan on June 21, 2018, 01:08:24 PM
Peter Fonda is showing that he is as vile as any member of the Trump administration:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/secret-service-eyeing-peter-fonda-tweet-putting-barron-trump-cage-pedophiles-212809223.html

*looks at thread title*

This is a disgusting comment, though.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 21, 2018, 01:25:28 PM
Peter Fonda is showing that he is as vile as any member of the Trump administration:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/secret-service-eyeing-peter-fonda-tweet-putting-barron-trump-cage-pedophiles-212809223.html

*looks at thread title*

This is a disgusting comment, though.
Its an over reaction to whats happening at the border. Fair game post.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 21, 2018, 01:36:06 PM
Peter Fonda is showing that he is as vile as any member of the Trump administration:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/secret-service-eyeing-peter-fonda-tweet-putting-barron-trump-cage-pedophiles-212809223.html

*looks at thread title*

This is a disgusting comment, though.
Its an over reaction to whats happening at the border. Fair game post.

Yeah, in a different time I could see Miller as a gleeful member of the SS.

But, advocating child gang rape indicates somebody with a poisonous soul, as well.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 21, 2018, 01:38:59 PM
Peter Fonda is showing that he is as vile as any member of the Trump administration:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/secret-service-eyeing-peter-fonda-tweet-putting-barron-trump-cage-pedophiles-212809223.html

*looks at thread title*

This is a disgusting comment, though.
Its an over reaction to whats happening at the border. Fair game post.

Yeah, you can't fight vile with vile!
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 21, 2018, 01:41:55 PM
If some of these kids get lost in the system and never returned to their parents, this better be the straw that breaks the camel's back for non-hardcore Trump voters that sticks in their craw until election day 2020. It better be a ongoing political set of commercial that airs consistently during 2020.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: blink on June 21, 2018, 01:47:29 PM
Peter Fonda is showing that he is as vile as any member of the Trump administration:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/secret-service-eyeing-peter-fonda-tweet-putting-barron-trump-cage-pedophiles-212809223.html

Yeah that tweet was horrible / dumb / over the top and the anger was def misplaced.

But Peter Fonda isn't leading our country.  He is just some random actor guy that said something horrible, and is mad, and eventually apologized for the tweet. 

Stephen Miller, on the other hand, is a senior advisor to the President of the United States.  Somehow, we have handed the keys to the country to the Trumps and Millers of the world.  It is dangerous.  Not only because of their actions related to immigration and race, but also because they are a bunch of buffoons who don't know what the hell they are doing running the country.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 21, 2018, 01:51:45 PM
If some of these kids get lost in the system and never returned to their parents, this better be the straw that breaks the camel's back for non-hardcore Trump voters that sticks in their craw until election day 2020. It better be a ongoing political set of commercial that airs consistently during 2020.

Amen. I cannot fathom thousands of children just lost. How again is this good for immigration? Deport the parents and now the kids are just put into the foster care system? Someone going to adopt them here?

Just an absolute mess
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 21, 2018, 02:04:40 PM
If some of these kids get lost in the system and never returned to their parents, this better be the straw that breaks the camel's back for non-hardcore Trump voters that sticks in their craw until election day 2020. It better be a ongoing political set of commercial that airs consistently during 2020.

Amen. I cannot fathom thousands of children just lost. How again is this good for immigration? Deport the parents and now the kids are just put into the foster care system? Someone going to adopt them here?

Just an absolute mess
Number won't be thousands but if its more than zero, its a problem because it should never have happened in the first place
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 21, 2018, 02:08:07 PM
If some of these kids get lost in the system and never returned to their parents, this better be the straw that breaks the camel's back for non-hardcore Trump voters that sticks in their craw until election day 2020. It better be a ongoing political set of commercial that airs consistently during 2020.

Amen. I cannot fathom thousands of children just lost. How again is this good for immigration? Deport the parents and now the kids are just put into the foster care system? Someone going to adopt them here?

Just an absolute mess

It's an unthought out mess.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 21, 2018, 02:16:34 PM
If some of these kids get lost in the system and never returned to their parents, this better be the straw that breaks the camel's back for non-hardcore Trump voters that sticks in their craw until election day 2020. It better be a ongoing political set of commercial that airs consistently during 2020.

Spoiler: It won't be. Too much time, too little empathy, too easy to play off prejudices. Kids would have to die and that probably wouldn't be enough.

And that's if they are willing to believe it in the first place - I can't speak for hardcoreness but some Trump supporters are telling interviewers that they believe the pictures and video of child detention centers that the government provided are all faked and Photoshopped. It's very hard to get people to change their mind when they've been conditioned to believe all undesirable information is fabricated by shadowy conspirators.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 21, 2018, 03:34:11 PM
- One official reports the Feds are no longer prosecuting misdemeanor border crossings for migrants with children, until they have enough capacity. Some charges seem to have been abruptly dropped. A DOJ spokeswoman then contradicted this, saying that zero tolerance remains fully in effect.

Looks like this was...clarified? Sort of?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgO4yTmU0AA28tZ.jpg)

Seems like a distinction without a difference, if they aren't being referred for prosecution they wouldn't be prosecuted I think. I suppose the original verbiage could suggest ongoing prosecutions would be dropped, but there are reports of that happening too.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 21, 2018, 03:41:45 PM
Quote
some Trump supporters are telling interviewers that they believe the pictures and video of child detention centers that the government provided are all faked and Photoshopped

In part that’s because the media and critics have been sloppy, using inaccurate photos.

Photo of a child from a protest, where protesters put their own kids into cages:

(https://cdn-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180618100931-viral-photo-migrant-child-cage-trnd-exlarge-169.jpg)

Photo from 2014:

(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180529125922-nogales-immigration-detainees-2014-large-169.jpg)

Quote from far-left Slate.com:

Quote
The cycle wasn’t over yet. To complicate matters, the viral video factory Now This used 4-year-old, Obama-era photos and descriptions of undocumented child migrants in the Nogales Placement Center to criticize President Trump’s separation policy. A widely shared photo of a “prison bus for babies” turned out to be, well, a prison bus for children aged 4 to 17—but one purchased more than two years ago to provide field trips and medical appointments to kids in detention centers run by President Obama’s DHS. “This is Trump’s America,” the musician Moby offered (1.35 million followers), sharing a photo of the bus. (Fact-check: It was Obama’s America first.) “A land of belligerence and cruelty and unspeakable heartlessness.” (Fact-check: true.)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/immigrant-children-separated-from-families-are-not-the-ones-supposedly-lost.html

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 21, 2018, 03:52:11 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 21, 2018, 03:54:29 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

How stupid, tone deaf, callous, heartless can these people be?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: heyvik on June 21, 2018, 04:01:10 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 21, 2018, 04:05:50 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"

It was confirmed by her spokeswoman.

https://twitter.com/StephGrisham45/status/1009881721012150272 (https://twitter.com/StephGrisham45/status/1009881721012150272)
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: celticinorlando on June 21, 2018, 04:05:51 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"


She indeed did. Her spokesperson confirmed it
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: heyvik on June 21, 2018, 04:13:35 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"

She indeed did. Her spokesperson confirmed it

Okay...lemme hope that the message is aimed at Pres Trump as opposed to the Immigrant situation in Texas...any thought - anyone?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 21, 2018, 04:18:43 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"
What's there to confirm? It's on the BBC, they do basic fact checking, unlike InfoWars and the likes...
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: heyvik on June 21, 2018, 04:23:55 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"
What's there to confirm? It's on the BBC, they do basic fact checking, unlike InfoWars and the likes...

WOW...I see it all over the place. I thought your link was a spoof (BCB or something like that). Thanks for confirming. What I was trying to do was not jump to conclusions and run with a thought that may not have been true. Now that I see that it really is...WOW...

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 21, 2018, 04:26:54 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"

She indeed did. Her spokesperson confirmed it

Okay...lemme hope that the message is aimed at Pres Trump as opposed to the Immigrant situation in Texas...any thought - anyone?

My gut response is "I think they're just tonedeaf and didn't think about it at all" but I have to believe any outfit a FLOTUS wears is seen by multiple aides before they go out in public, especially a written message in big font, so someone should've pointed it out. It's very hard to parse the incompetence from the malice with this bunch. 

I can just about guarantee it's not a hidden message to Trump, though.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 21, 2018, 04:34:45 PM
My gut response is "I think they're just tonedeaf and didn't think about it at all" but I have to believe any outfit a FLOTUS wears is seen by multiple aides before they go out in public, especially a written message in big font, so someone should've pointed it out. It's very hard to parse the incompetence from the malice with this bunch.
Hanlon's Razor. By far my favorite aphorism.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 21, 2018, 04:38:36 PM
My gut response is "I think they're just tonedeaf and didn't think about it at all" but I have to believe any outfit a FLOTUS wears is seen by multiple aides before they go out in public, especially a written message in big font, so someone should've pointed it out. It's very hard to parse the incompetence from the malice with this bunch.
Hanlon's Razor. By far my favorite aphorism.

Yeah that's why my gut says incompetence. It's just that the incompetence explanation requiring it from multiple different parties and the malice just needing one makes it trickier.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 21, 2018, 04:45:29 PM
My gut response is "I think they're just tonedeaf and didn't think about it at all" but I have to believe any outfit a FLOTUS wears is seen by multiple aides before they go out in public, especially a written message in big font, so someone should've pointed it out. It's very hard to parse the incompetence from the malice with this bunch.
Hanlon's Razor. By far my favorite aphorism.

Yeah that's why my gut says incompetence. It's just that the incompetence explanation requiring it from multiple different parties and the malice just needing one makes it trickier.
I'd say the Dunning-Kruger effect extends to not recognizing incompetence in others.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 21, 2018, 04:55:07 PM
More comedy gold from the White House.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44570688

In all seriousness, can someone please confirm or deny if this is a Photoshop of the FLOTUS.
Did she really wear a jacket down to Texas that said "I really don't care. Do u?"

She indeed did. Her spokesperson confirmed it

Okay...lemme hope that the message is aimed at Pres Trump as opposed to the Immigrant situation in Texas...any thought - anyone?

My gut response is "I think they're just tonedeaf and didn't think about it at all" but I have to believe any outfit a FLOTUS wears is seen by multiple aides before they go out in public, especially a written message in big font, so someone should've pointed it out. It's very hard to parse the incompetence from the malice with this bunch. 

I can just about guarantee it's not a hidden message to Trump, though.

A message to the base.... “I really don’t care, do u?”

And who is wearing a jacket in Texas in June?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 21, 2018, 05:00:46 PM
My gut response is "I think they're just tonedeaf and didn't think about it at all" but I have to believe any outfit a FLOTUS wears is seen by multiple aides before they go out in public, especially a written message in big font, so someone should've pointed it out. It's very hard to parse the incompetence from the malice with this bunch.
Hanlon's Razor. By far my favorite aphorism.

Yeah that's why my gut says incompetence. It's just that the incompetence explanation requiring it from multiple different parties and the malice just needing one makes it trickier.

Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

We might need a new one:
Trump's Razor: "Be cautious attributing to stupidity that which is explained by cruelty."
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: blink on June 21, 2018, 05:12:36 PM
I thought this whole jacket thing was a joke, or something.  I guess not.  can we impeach the first lady for general stupidity?

just checking...

This comes from someone who has never dis-liked a first lady, no matter what party or who they were married to.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 21, 2018, 05:16:00 PM
I thought this whole jacket thing was a joke, or something.  I guess not.  can we impeach the first lady for general stupidity?

just checking...

No, but she might meet Trump's task force's deportation criteria...
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: nickagneta on June 22, 2018, 12:55:48 AM
Melania might be beautiful, but she is quite stupid. Her taste in fashion and husband prove that.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 22, 2018, 08:19:37 AM
Melania might be beautiful, but she is quite stupid. Her taste in fashion and husband prove that.
There's no way this isn't intentional, by the way. As someone pointed out, this is a $40 Zara jacket. I doubt this type of clothes are usually part of her wardrobe.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Roy H. on June 22, 2018, 08:31:44 AM
Melania might be beautiful, but she is quite stupid. Her taste in fashion and husband prove that.
There's no way this isn't intentional, by the way. As someone pointed out, this is a $40 Zara jacket. I doubt this type of clothes are usually part of her wardrobe.

It's intentional.  What we don't know is what the intent was. 

It's obviously not a shot at the children.  She's not saying she doesn't care about them, because quite obviously she does.  I mean, she made a rare public comment indicating she didn't like the policy of child separation.  How many first ladies have ever publicly contradicted a policy of her husband, even in part?

My guess is that he statement was meant to be ironic / sarcastic toward her critics.  She gets criticized constantly despite keeping a low profile, and this jacket is probably a swipe at that and the assumptions that people make about her.

As for her taste in men, it's a situation as old as time:  some people sacrifice love for security.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: indeedproceed on June 22, 2018, 08:57:59 AM
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/06/22/fox-friends-host-these-arent-our-kids-its-not-trump-doing-people-idaho-or-texas/220515

Everyone relax! It’s not like it’s YOUR kids.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Neurotic Guy on June 22, 2018, 09:08:50 AM
Melania might be beautiful, but she is quite stupid. Her taste in fashion and husband prove that.
There's no way this isn't intentional, by the way. As someone pointed out, this is a $40 Zara jacket. I doubt this type of clothes are usually part of her wardrobe.

It's intentional.  What we don't know is what the intent was. 

It's obviously not a shot at the children.  She's not saying she doesn't care about them, because quite obviously she does.  I mean, she made a rare public comment indicating she didn't like the policy of child separation.  How many first ladies have ever publicly contradicted a policy of her husband, even in part?

My guess is that he statement was meant to be ironic / sarcastic toward her critics.  She gets criticized constantly despite keeping a low profile, and this jacket is probably a swipe at that and the assumptions that people make about her.

As for her taste in men, it's a situation as old as time:  some people sacrifice love for security.

I agree - it was a statement that is open to interpretation.

Inerpretation #1: Sarcasm.  She really does care (as evidenced by her being there) and she's reacting perhaps to those who have presumed she doesn't.

Interptretation #2: She is lashing out passive-aggressively at her husband -- the jacket as the symbolic mouthpiece of POTUS -- essentially mocking his lack of compassion.

Interpreation #3: SHE is saying "let them eat cake" and stating that the only reason she is visiting the facility is basically for a photo op.

Regardless, since there is no doubt that she is making a "statement" (and not a fashion one), my preference would be that she not play games.  Just say what you think for crying out loud.

Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on June 22, 2018, 10:12:00 AM
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/06/22/fox-friends-host-these-arent-our-kids-its-not-trump-doing-people-idaho-or-texas/220515

Everyone relax! It’s not like it’s YOUR kids.

I can't believe the guy who once said Americans aren't as "pure" as Swedes because we "breed with other ethnics" would say such a thing.  :o



After days of demanding Congress change immigration laws, and just one day after telling House Republicans to vote for the "compromise" (between R camps) bill, Trump went online to blow up any chance at a bill by demanding they wait til after the midterms. Looks like someone wants to keep the race bait popping through election day.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: indeedproceed on June 22, 2018, 11:25:21 AM
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/06/22/fox-friends-host-these-arent-our-kids-its-not-trump-doing-people-idaho-or-texas/220515

Everyone relax! It’s not like it’s YOUR kids.

I can't believe the guy who once said Americans aren't as "pure" as Swedes because we "breed with other ethnics" would say such a thing.  :o



After days of demanding Congress change immigration laws, and just one day after telling House Republicans to vote for the "compromise" (between R camps) bill, Trump went online to blow up any chance at a bill by demanding they wait til after the midterms. Looks like someone wants to keep the race bait popping through election day.

You literally can't be sure of anything with Trump. Sure he's bad for America, but he just makes those libs so angry! Gotta love it. #ShootMe
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 22, 2018, 12:08:50 PM
Posted twice to this thread, and it disappeared each time. Can't recover it now. No PMs or anything to indicate it was intentionally removed. Not in my posted message history either.
I've found out that  your posts can absolutely get removed without notice of any kind.

And your thread titles edited to reflect the preferred characterizations of people with the power to do so.


If anyone's interested here's the executive order changing the policy that doesn't exist but is also totally Obama's terrible policy and also a good policy that Trump made and also something only Congress could change:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/)

It was 404'ed for awhile because our wise leadership can't spell "separation".

So we'll now be detaining adults and kids together, at least in theory. This:

Quote from: Dean Emeritus of Trump University
It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources

seems like it has loopholes you could drive a truck through. Also seems to define families in a way where illegal aliens with citizen children aren't covered. And of course managed to squeeze a good bit of lying and fingerpointing but what's new?

Hopeful we can manage to get the taken kids back to their families ASAP, but getting ready for the inevitable "oops we might've lost some kids" stories in a couple weeks.


Well, no idea what in my post warranted removal, didn't seem that out of line to anything else around here.

To recap:
1. It is disingenuous to say that a person is politically pro-human rights just so that the would be sufferers of human rights abuses vote for them. Of course victims of human rights abuses are not going to vote for the ones who would like to continue human rights abuses.

2. To hide behind the veil of 'protecting the white working class' is dishonest. It's protecting the white class; if someone was really interested in protecting the working class they wouldn't try to promote the wealth gap, promote corporate power, promote corporate tax cuts, gut medicaid, gut medicare, gut social security, gut family planning, torpedo healthcare, gut unions, etc, at every possible turn. You know, all the things that help the (white, brown, male, female) working class.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/19/house-gop-plan-would-cut-medicare-social-security-to-balance-budget/?utm_term=.b0f0b858d374

Welp, there it is; congressional republicans looking to cut 1.5 Trillion from the popular medicare/medicaid programs that genuinely benefit the working class, to help offset the 1+Trillion tax shift to the already rich they passed already. But the problem for US workers is immigrants taking their jobs!!!
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: ScoobyDoo on June 22, 2018, 12:30:43 PM
Not a single child should ever be separated from their parents at the border. As in divorces the children shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of their parents.

The entire family should be sent back - together, and a bill for the cost of doing so should be sent to the Mexican Government. Payment terms? Due upon receipt.

All these people are at the border because the government of Mexico is grossly failing it’s people. 100% not our responsibility. Thinking so would be like having a major problem with an immediate family member and then making that issue the responsibility of all your neighbors. No. Fix your own problems and clean up your own back yard. All of the world’s problems should not magically become ours to solve.

For the record, I would most likely be at the border with my family if I were from Mexico - I would try to get here. I get why they’re trying to get here, that’s a no brainer choice.

That said and for the record, in today’s world, the border should be hermetically sealed and the only immigration occurring should be incredibly controlled.

The fact that it isn’t is testament to the incomprehensible incompetance and gross negligence of our political class. They should all be fired immediately and replaced with adults who actually give a crap about this country more than their re-election self interests.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 22, 2018, 12:40:16 PM
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/06/22/fox-friends-host-these-arent-our-kids-its-not-trump-doing-people-idaho-or-texas/220515

Everyone relax! It’s not like it’s YOUR kids.

I can't believe the guy who once said Americans aren't as "pure" as Swedes because we "breed with other ethnics" would say such a thing.  :o



After days of demanding Congress change immigration laws, and just one day after telling House Republicans to vote for the "compromise" (between R camps) bill, Trump went online to blow up any chance at a bill by demanding they wait til after the midterms. Looks like someone wants to keep the race bait popping through election day.

You literally can't be sure of anything with Trump. Sure he's bad for America, but he just makes those libs so angry! Gotta love it. #ShootMe

I always say " What's bad for America is bad for America" but as long as you get a chuckle out of it....
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 22, 2018, 01:38:31 PM
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/06/22/fox-friends-host-these-arent-our-kids-its-not-trump-doing-people-idaho-or-texas/220515

Everyone relax! It’s not like it’s YOUR kids.

I can't believe the guy who once said Americans aren't as "pure" as Swedes because we "breed with other ethnics" would say such a thing.  :o
I can't believe the guy who once said that still has a job in media, but that's Fox News for you.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 22, 2018, 02:48:59 PM
Immigration is basically a net negative right now, more people were going back to Latin America anyways than are coming in.  There isn't even any conclusive proof that illegal immigration is bad.  This is just an issue to appeal to a certain kind of voter.  We should have more open borders if anything.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 22, 2018, 02:51:45 PM
Immigration is basically a net negative right now, more people were going back to Latin America anyways than are coming in.  There isn't even any conclusive proof that illegal immigration is bad.  This is just an issue to appeal to a certain kind of voter.  We should have more open borders if anything.
I'm hard pressed to think of a normal person to whom this can appeal. Here's where we are right now:

Quote
One legal aid organization, the Texas Civil Rights Project, is representing more than 300 parents and has been able to track down only two children.

“Either the government wasn’t thinking at all about how they were going to put these families back together, or they decided they just didn’t care,” said Natalia Cornelio, with the organization.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-chaotic-effort-to-reunite-immigrant-parents-with-their-separated-kids/2018/06/21/325cceb2-7563-11e8-bda1-18e53a448a14_story.html?utm_term=.e2d5ad493e63
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on June 22, 2018, 04:23:13 PM

I'm hard pressed to think of a normal person to whom this can appeal. Here's where we are right now:


Here is how Fox News is covering Stephen Miller in the news the last week:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/18/rosie-odonnell-compares-trump-adviser-stephen-miller-to-baby-hitler.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/20/peter-fonda-tweets-wants-to-rip-barron-trump-from-his-mother-and-put-him-in-cage-with-pedophiles.html

Here are Fox News' stellar ratings: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/weekly-cable-ranker-fnc-remains-no-1-in-prime-time-viewers-posts-year-over-year-growth-cnn-edges-msnbc-in-prime-time-demo/367648

Now go read the comment sections in those articles to see how about 40% of our country thinks.  A big swath of our country is being brain washed by rich people so that they can put through legislation that will make them richer.  They are taking those riches from the poor and middle class.  Immigration is an easy way to pit people against other people, so they play that up to get their base worked up.  Simple as that.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kraidstar on June 22, 2018, 05:26:49 PM

I'm hard pressed to think of a normal person to whom this can appeal. Here's where we are right now:


Here is how Fox News is covering Stephen Miller in the news the last week:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/18/rosie-odonnell-compares-trump-adviser-stephen-miller-to-baby-hitler.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/20/peter-fonda-tweets-wants-to-rip-barron-trump-from-his-mother-and-put-him-in-cage-with-pedophiles.html

Here are Fox News' stellar ratings: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/weekly-cable-ranker-fnc-remains-no-1-in-prime-time-viewers-posts-year-over-year-growth-cnn-edges-msnbc-in-prime-time-demo/367648

Now go read the comment sections in those articles to see how about 40% of our country thinks.  A big swath of our country is being brain washed by rich people so that they can put through legislation that will make them richer.  They are taking those riches from the poor and middle class.  Immigration is an easy way to pit people against other people, so they play that up to get their base worked up.  Simple as that.

The Confederate plantation owners convinced hundreds of thousands of poor white Southerners to die on their behalf based on similarly insane/selfish reasoning. It's an old playbook:

1. Exploit poor whites and people of color
2. Convince poor whites that they are morally and intellectually superior to people of color
3. Convince poor whites that minorities are also dangerous
5. Use purported danger as a distraction while you further loot the public
4. Demonize the whites who try to expose what you are doing (the Yankees, Commies, Terrorist sympathizers, Libs etc)
5. Blame your political opponents as the underclass spirals further into poverty due to your own political policies
6. Cut education and spend on propaganda to keep awareness down
7. Repeat above steps until the public is numb and dumb
8. Enjoy the wealth and the women as your nation slowly fails
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: kozlodoev on June 22, 2018, 06:19:13 PM
Aw. How presidential.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44580964
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Neurotic Guy on June 22, 2018, 07:50:26 PM
Aw. How presidential.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44580964

I don't know much about equivalency or proportionality when it comes to issues related to illegal immigration, but I do know that we should not have to take sides when it comes to morality and compassion.  There should be compassion for the families of victims of criminal who cross the border illegally. There should also be compassion for families seeking asylum or a safer life who have been torn apart by zero tolerance.

There is probably blame on both sides for how this is being politicized, but it seems to me that securing our borders to reduce illegal crossings AND having a compassionate policy for refugees and those seeking political asylum can co-exist. 

Yet, we are once again fed the lie of a false binary choice: you either believe in "open borders" or "zero tolerance".   Isn't anyone going to emerge as a sane and trusted statesman (statesperson) in this mess?   A moderate republican needs to lead, and moderate dems need to pay attention and collaborate. 
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 22, 2018, 08:21:04 PM
One blessing from Trumps Exec order is now we no longer have to listen to pundits saying we have to separate families because “it’s the law”. That was always the most inane part of it. It wasn’t Law. It was policy.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on June 22, 2018, 08:50:21 PM
Bipartisan Immigration Reform.

Remember when it happened in 2013?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-passes-immigration-reform/story?id=19506151

Passed by a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate.
Positive takes from Obama who would have signed it.
It would have addressed DACA.
It would have provided $30B in extra border security funds (more than what Trump is currently asking for).

.... But House Republicans.... Well, we know what happened.


Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 24, 2018, 10:35:45 PM
Bipartisan Immigration Reform.

Remember when it happened in 2013?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-passes-immigration-reform/story?id=19506151

Passed by a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate.
Positive takes from Obama who would have signed it.
It would have addressed DACA.
It would have provided $30B in extra border security funds (more than what Trump is currently asking for).

.... But House Republicans.... Well, we know what happened.

How much is it going to cost to jail all these people coming in? Is living in one of our jails better than what these immigrants are facing in the place where they came from? This whole thing is not well thought out. Seems like another big money making system. The tax payers are going to be footing the bill for all this. Who owns the companies that are going to be racking in all the cash on this policy? What a mess.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Fan from VT on June 24, 2018, 10:47:35 PM
Bipartisan Immigration Reform.

Remember when it happened in 2013?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-passes-immigration-reform/story?id=19506151

Passed by a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate.
Positive takes from Obama who would have signed it.
It would have addressed DACA.
It would have provided $30B in extra border security funds (more than what Trump is currently asking for).

.... But House Republicans.... Well, we know what happened.

How much is it going to cost to jail all these people coming in? Is living in one of our jails better than what these immigrants are facing in the place where they came from? This whole thing is not well thought out. Seems like another big money making system. The tax payers are going to be footing the bill for all this. Who owns the companies that are going to be racking in all the cash on this policy? What a mess.

from @delavegalaw
Quote
Guess who each gave $250,000 to Trump's inauguration? CoreCivic & GEO Corp. Both huge beneficiaries of Trump's cruel detentions
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: liam on June 24, 2018, 10:49:01 PM
Bipartisan Immigration Reform.

Remember when it happened in 2013?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-passes-immigration-reform/story?id=19506151

Passed by a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate.
Positive takes from Obama who would have signed it.
It would have addressed DACA.
It would have provided $30B in extra border security funds (more than what Trump is currently asking for).

.... But House Republicans.... Well, we know what happened.

How much is it going to cost to jail all these people coming in? Is living in one of our jails better than what these immigrants are facing in the place where they came from? This whole thing is not well thought out. Seems like another big money making system. The tax payers are going to be footing the bill for all this. Who owns the companies that are going to be racking in all the cash on this policy? What a mess.

from @delavegalaw
Quote
Guess who each gave $250,000 to Trump's inauguration? CoreCivic & GEO Corp. Both huge beneficiaries of Trump's cruel detentions

TP, Knew it!
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on July 02, 2018, 09:41:40 AM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: indeedproceed on July 02, 2018, 10:06:42 AM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Stephen Miller will go down in history as a pretty terrible human being, and the source of a lot of the bad policies from the Trump admin.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Pucaccia on July 02, 2018, 10:22:17 AM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Simple Solution....If you don't want to be separated from your kids, DON'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! That's not racist, that's common sense.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on July 02, 2018, 10:23:37 AM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Simple Solution....If you don't want to be separated from your kids, DON'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! That's not racist, that's common sense.

Do you want to try and read the article, or at least the words in the post, and take another crack at this?  Love that authoritarian spirit though!
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Vermont Green on July 02, 2018, 10:38:52 AM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Simple Solution....If you don't want to be separated from your kids, DON'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! That's not racist, that's common sense.

It is not "ILLEGAL" to come to the United States boarder and seek asylum.  This is not an insignificant nuance.  Your obvious misunderstanding of this is the result of all the hostile and untruthful rhetoric that Trump generates.

There is a fair policy question here to decide how we want to administer asylum seekers.  What rules apply, etc.  America cannot accept every asylum seeker that comes to our boarder but it is false to say these people have come here illegally and therefore deserve to have their children taken away and lost in the foster care program forever.

But you cannot have this discussion or ever resolve the fair questions about the asylum program as long the false narrative is put out there.  This is as Trump wants it.  He does not care about the nuts and bolts of governing, only firing up his base.  The facts in this case would not fire them up nearly as much as the false illegal narrative does.  Nor would making some minor administrative changes that might make the program better.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: DivingCowens on July 02, 2018, 10:47:51 AM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

You're right, but need to take this point further, and actually read the law, to see that the strawman argument re: ports of entry, is patently ridiculous.

8 U.S.C. 1158 ("Asylum") states:

(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general

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.

It is simply a LIE that asylum seekers must do so at a port of entry. It's false. ANY alien, "regardless of status" may apply for asylum if "physically present in the United States."

Everyone's a lawyer now but so few take the time to actually read law or precedent to determine the veracity of statements from the *President and his people, even though the internet and U.S. Code is freely searchable... at least, for now.

Makes me wonder why I bothered to spend three years of my life studying my ass off and putting myself into perpetual debt when I could have just joined Twitter I guess.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: heyvik on July 02, 2018, 10:47:51 AM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Simple Solution....If you don't want to be separated from your kids, DON'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! That's not racist, that's common sense.

Do you want to try and read the article, or at least the words in the post, and take another crack at this?  Love that authoritarian spirit though!

I tried to stay out, but I think what happens is that Trump supporters say things like what's above and when actually PROOF is given they either don't respond and refuse to believe anything anyone other than Fox, InfoWars etc OR they Immediately dismiss it as Fake News which is anything other then Fox News.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: mqtcelticsfan on July 05, 2018, 02:38:50 PM
https://twitter.com/abogada_laura/status/1014214985218547712?s=21

This is the kind of stuff that gets me. How is this a fair way to treat children?
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on July 06, 2018, 09:55:52 AM
It's not quite the "whoops we lost some kids" story I've been bracing for, but the government turns out to no longer know which kids in their custody came alone and which were taken from parents. Records are missing or in some cases destroyed  :o, and it looks as though there was never a coherent plan to reunite families at all. So we're now running thousands of DNA tests at taxpayer expense to try and undo this horrific and utterly stupid policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-chaos-family-separation.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-chaos-family-separation.html)
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on July 10, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
Today was a court deadline for reuniting confiscated children under 5 years old with their parents. Of 102 such kids DOJ says there are 75 that qualify for reuniting, and 4 have been reunited. They estimate another 34 will be reunited by the end of the day.

Among the details of the cases that can't be resolved by the deadline is this gem:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhwuacmX0AAjjGG.jpg)

So we may have detained and taken kids from US citizens. Whether it's true in this case or not, how these kinds of nearly inevitable consequences were totally disregarded by people who normally believe the government is too incompetent to be trusted remains beyond me.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: gift on July 10, 2018, 02:11:33 PM
Today was a court deadline for reuniting confiscated children under 5 years old with their parents. Of 102 such kids DOJ says there are 75 that qualify for reuniting, and 4 have been reunited. They estimate another 34 will be reunited by the end of the day.

Among the details of the cases that can't be resolved by the deadline is this gem:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhwuacmX0AAjjGG.jpg)

So we may have detained and taken kids from US citizens. Whether it's true in this case or not, how this kind of nearly inevitable consequence was totally disregarded by people who normally believe the government is too incompetent to be trusted remains beyond me.

Hopefully they start acting like the government is too incompetent to be trusted rather than just believing it.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: 86MaxwellSmart on July 10, 2018, 02:32:39 PM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Simple Solution....If you don't want to be separated from your kids, DON'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! That's not racist, that's common sense.

THANK YOU....now, let's talk about the Celtics~!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on July 10, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Simple Solution....If you don't want to be separated from your kids, DON'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! That's not racist, that's common sense.

THANK YOU....now, let's talk about the Celtics~!!!!!!!

Ok, so now I'll ask you too - would you like to try and read the article or even the actual post and try again?  I highlighted one very important part in case it's too daunting a task.

Now that I think about it, these two responses are a great answer to the question I posed at the end, though.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: heyvik on July 10, 2018, 02:58:25 PM
Court records show that parents applying for asylum at legal points of entry were still having their children taken from them, despite the administration's claims that it was a "myth".

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html)

Why are we still pretending this was/is just about illegal border crossing?

Simple Solution....If you don't want to be separated from your kids, DON'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY! That's not racist, that's common sense.

THANK YOU....now, let's talk about the Celtics~!!!!!!!

Ok, so now I'll ask you too - would you like to try and read the article or even the actual post and try again?  I highlighted one very important part in case it's too daunting a task.

Now that I think about it, these two responses are a great answer to the question I posed at the end, though.

I along with you will wait to see if the article is read and then discussed. I honestly for the life of me do not understand when proof is given its just ignored.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on July 10, 2018, 03:13:13 PM
Today was a court deadline for reuniting confiscated children under 5 years old with their parents. Of 102 such kids DOJ says there are 75 that qualify for reuniting, and 4 have been reunited. They estimate another 34 will be reunited by the end of the day.

Among the details of the cases that can't be resolved by the deadline is this gem:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhwuacmX0AAjjGG.jpg)

So we may have detained and taken kids from US citizens. Whether it's true in this case or not, how these kinds of nearly inevitable consequences were totally disregarded by people who normally believe the government is too incompetent to be trusted remains beyond me.

Yes, this part of it is always a head scratcher.
The government is an inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy.
Except for when it comes to (1) prison sentences and capital punishment and (2) separation of parents and children.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: gift on July 10, 2018, 03:38:50 PM
Today was a court deadline for reuniting confiscated children under 5 years old with their parents. Of 102 such kids DOJ says there are 75 that qualify for reuniting, and 4 have been reunited. They estimate another 34 will be reunited by the end of the day.

Among the details of the cases that can't be resolved by the deadline is this gem:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhwuacmX0AAjjGG.jpg)

So we may have detained and taken kids from US citizens. Whether it's true in this case or not, how these kinds of nearly inevitable consequences were totally disregarded by people who normally believe the government is too incompetent to be trusted remains beyond me.

Yes, this part of it is always a head scratcher.
The government is an inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy.
Except for when it comes to (1) prison sentences and capital punishment and (2) separation of parents and children.

No one likes the government when it acts against their wishes, yet many people empower the government in efforts to use it in accordance with their wishes, knowing that in doing so it will act against the wishes of others and most certainly, using that same power, against their own in the future.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: fairweatherfan on July 10, 2018, 04:16:13 PM
Today was a court deadline for reuniting confiscated children under 5 years old with their parents. Of 102 such kids DOJ says there are 75 that qualify for reuniting, and 4 have been reunited. They estimate another 34 will be reunited by the end of the day.

Among the details of the cases that can't be resolved by the deadline is this gem:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhwuacmX0AAjjGG.jpg)

So we may have detained and taken kids from US citizens. Whether it's true in this case or not, how these kinds of nearly inevitable consequences were totally disregarded by people who normally believe the government is too incompetent to be trusted remains beyond me.

Yes, this part of it is always a head scratcher.
The government is an inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy.
Except for when it comes to (1) prison sentences and capital punishment and (2) separation of parents and children.

Don't forget police shootings! Where the government agent wielding deadly force is inexplicably far less responsible for their actions than the dead unarmed person who gets castigated and smeared in the grave.

With the exception of the occasional libertarian type who's genuinely consistent on it, the real code always seems to be "small enabling government for me (still subsidizing me but in ways I can easily disregard), big oppressive government for thee."

It always reminds me of how "criminal" gets used rhetorically as a sort of personality trait that defines disliked groups but people with favored identities being convicted of actual crimes are ignored or minimized. Note how Trump and people here's response to the admin violating a court order is to blame the separated families for breaking the law - in other words, "we" don't have to follow the law but "they" do, so it's all their fault. It's ingroups and outgroups all the way down. And these poor kids are definitely an outgroup.
Title: Re: Stephen Miller
Post by: Cman on July 13, 2018, 09:09:11 AM
Many children still not reunited with their parents.
This is out of the headlines now, but still very real for the parents and kids that have been separated.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/12/migrant-reunification-aclu-685673