According to the donkeys at MSNBC, we are now running concentration camps.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Max E., Jun 16, 2018.

  1. UsualName

    UsualName

    Separating children from their parents is inhumanly cruel to the children. Next time you bible thumping inbreeds stumble into a church ask the pastor how Jesus felt about children paying for the sins of their parents.

    So much for being a “ Judeo-Christian” society. Your right wingers have no morals.
     
    #21     Jun 17, 2018
  2. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    At least Jeff pays them what he agreed to pay them


     
    #22     Jun 17, 2018
  3. 'Hundreds' from the 'tens of thousands' he worked with over three decades.....

    Got something else?
     
    #23     Jun 17, 2018
  4. IMMIGRATION
    The Truth about Separating Kids
    By RICH LOWRY
    May 28, 2018 10:37 PM
    [​IMG]
    U.S. Border Patrol agents with illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border near McAllen, Texas, May 9, 2018. (Loren Elliott/Reuters)
    Some economic migrants are using children as chits, but the problem is fixable — if Congress acts.

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

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

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
























    00:00
    00:29




    Related Videos
















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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case.

    A few points about all this:

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

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

    Children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases.

    Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.

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

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

    In April, the New York Times reported:

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

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

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

    If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.

    COMMENTS
    4) Congress can fix this. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed. Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly.

    The missing piece here is Congress, but little outrage will be directed at it, and probably nothing will be done. And so our perverse system will remain in place and the crisis at the border will rumble on.

    [​IMG]
    RICH LOWRY
    — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. @richlowry
     
    #24     Jun 17, 2018
    Poindexter and MoneyMatthew like this.
  5. DHS Secretary Nielsen slams 'irresponsible' media, says no 'policy of separating families at the border'
    By Frank Miles | Fox News
    Secretary Nielsen on advancing Trump's immigration agenda

    On 'Fox & Friends,' Homeland Security secretary says the need for action on border security is clear.

    The head of the Department of Homeland Security bashed the media Sunday for their reporting on the increasingly volatile immigration controversy, writing in a string of tweets: “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”

    Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen added: “This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.”

    She noted that no one is “breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry.”

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen



    This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.

    5:51 PM - Jun 17, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    The Trump administration, which has called it “horrible” that illegal-immigrant children are sometimes separated from their parents when their parents enter criminal proceedings, has been criticized in recent weeks for increasing the prosecutions of illegal immigrants under a “zero-tolerance” policy that critics say leads to those separations.

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen

    3h
    This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen



    You are not breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry.

    5:51 PM - Jun 17, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    A child illegally entering the U.S. is generally separated from adults at the border if the child is in danger, has no clear relationship to the adult, or if the adult enters criminal proceedings.

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen

    3h
    This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen



    We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.

    5:52 PM - Jun 17, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    Through Twitter, Nielsen reiterated that current policies are derived from laws already in the books: “For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous Administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law.”

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen

    3h
    Replying to @SecNielsen
    You are not breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry.

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen



    For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous Administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law.

    5:52 PM - Jun 17, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    She added: “DHS takes very seriously its duty to protect minors in our temporary custody from gangs, traffickers, criminals and abuse.”

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen

    3h
    Replying to @SecNielsen
    For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous Administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law.

    [​IMG]
    Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

    ✔@SecNielsen



    DHS takes very seriously its duty to protect minors in our temporary custody from gangs, traffickers, criminals and abuse.

    5:53 PM - Jun 17, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    Earlier this month, Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon was denied entry at a detention center he attempted to visit in Texas after the police were called and an official told him to "please go away." He and other Democratic politicians have visited other immigrant detention facilities successfully.
     
    #25     Jun 17, 2018
    Clubber Lang likes this.
  6. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    Its more than Bezos who the hypocrite was criticizing
     
    #26     Jun 17, 2018
  7. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark



    Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee

    USA TODAY analysis finds 3,500 legal actions by and against Trump, fighting everyone from the government to the vodka makers.


    Nick Penzenstadler and Susan Page, USA TODAY


    Donald Trump is a fighter, famous for legal skirmishes over everything from his golf courses to his tax bills to Trump University. But until now, it hasn’t been clear precisely how litigious he is and what that might portend for a Trump presidency.

    An exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits.

    The sheer volume of lawsuits isunprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’scourtroom entanglements.

    Just since he announced his candidacy a year ago, at least 70 new cases have been filed, about evenly divided between lawsuits filed by him and his companies and those filed against them. And the records review found at least 50 civil lawsuits remain open even as he moves toward claiming the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in seven weeks. On Tuesday, court documents were released in one of the most dramatic current cases, filed in California by former students accusing Trump Universityoffraudulent andmisleading behavior.
     
    #27     Jun 17, 2018
  8. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    Wonder how well Trump University grads were paid
     
    #28     Jun 17, 2018
  9. You are correct. With Bezos it was 400 only in one of his companies. Have you heard reports about working conditions at Amazon?

    DC

    ‘Dear Jeff Bezos’: Over 400 Washington Post employees sign letter demanding better benefits
    "The Post is not just any business venture," the letter reads.

    Author: Chelsea Cirruzzo
    Published: 8:39 PM EDT June 16, 2018
    Updated: 11:11 PM EDT June 16, 2018
    WASHINGTON -- In a video and letter released on Wednesday, Washington Post employees asked Jeff Bezos, the newspaper’s owner, for better benefits, including better job security, fair pay, and a better 401K match.
     
    #29     Jun 17, 2018
  10. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    Do you not understand the difference between wanting more pay and not being paid?
     
    #30     Jun 17, 2018