Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Jade Helm Conspiracy Non-TerroristsFollow

#252 Jun 21 2018 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,383 posts
Samira wrote:
Kids can be categorized as "unaccompanied" if they're accompanied by an adult who is not their parent or legal guardian.


Sure. I don't think anyone was questioning that. Not relevant to your original statement about how "most" of them became unaccompanied as a result of being separated from their parents upon arriving in ICE custody though. But apparently only during Trump's term, and not Obama's. Again though, I'm not sure that's a great thing, since that suggests that a ton of kids were being sent to the US "absent parents of guardians" during the Obama administration, presumably in order to exploit a loophole in the system with all the innate risks that entails.

As bad as we might view the whole "OMG! They're separating children from parents in the immigration detention centers", I'm reasonably certain that these kids are less at risk being separated from their parents here in the US, than during the journey from whatever their starting point was to the US border. I'm reasonably certain that if we asked most parents if they'd rather their children be in US federal government custody or in the hands of "some guy I met who said he'd get them to the border cheap", it wouldn't be much of a question.

Setting that aside, there's also this issue of false/sudden drama at this. This is a pretty standard thing for law enforcement to do. Children are separated from parents and guardians in our legal system all the time. And yes, it sucks every single time. But the simple fact is that when a parent or guardian of a child is detained, we don't normally house any minors that are present with them in the same location. When parents are arrested guess where their children go? To CPS, right? They're put into a temporary facility initially, then moved into a home, unless a relative can be located quickly, and even then it can be difficult to release them once put into the system. Same basic system in place. Only here, we're dealing with kids who are also here illegally, which creates a wrinkle.

Selectively choosing to be outraged at this is silly. The same problem has existed all along. Someone (several someones) have chosen this time to make an issue of it and broadcast it to you, making you more aware of it than you were last year, or the year before that, or a decade ago, etc. It's pretty obviously politically motivated. Again, that doesn't mean that this isn't a problem, but it's a problem that didn't magically appear just now. Pretending it has is just allowing yourself to be used.

How about we discuss possible solutions without all the hysteria? Shocking concept, I know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#253 Jun 21 2018 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's pretty obviously politically motivated

Yes, Trump deciding to implement a "zero tolerance" policy and criminalize Improper Entry while lying about it being the Democrat's fault was indeed politically motivated. Sort of sad that you missed this, though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#254 Jun 21 2018 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,336 posts
So, DHS and HHS are fighting over who's responsible for tracking which kid(s) belong with which parent(s). I dunno, maybe a discreet tattoo would do it.....
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#255 Jun 21 2018 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,290 posts
Samira wrote:
So, DHS and HHS are fighting over who's responsible for tracking which kid(s) belong with which parent(s). I dunno, maybe a discreet tattoo would do it.....


Just release them free range. Their mothers will be able to determine which ones are theirs by scent. As long as they weren't handled too much.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#256 Jun 21 2018 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,610 posts
Samira wrote:
So, DHS and HHS are fighting over who's responsible for tracking which kid(s) belong with which parent(s). I dunno, maybe a discreet tattoo would do it.....
Left arm, just below the elbow.
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#257 Jun 22 2018 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
Whoa, whoa, whoa, tattoo's seems pretty extreme, maybe we could just pin, say, colors and shapes to their clothes. Like maybe a yellow Spongebob square, or a purple Tinky-Winky triangle!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#258 Jun 22 2018 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,665 posts
You kind of need both. You don't want those kids being mistaking for ours, do you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#259 Jun 26 2018 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,383 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's pretty obviously politically motivated

Yes, Trump deciding to implement a "zero tolerance" policy and criminalize Improper Entry...


At the risk of stating the obvious, Improper Entry (ie: sneaking across the border) is illegal. No one has to "criminalize" it. It's already a crime.

Quote:
... while lying about it being the Democrat's fault was indeed politically motivated. Sort of sad that you missed this, though.


What exactly did he lie about? Are you saying that he lied that it was the Democrat's fault that illegally entering the US was illegal and thus a crime? Or that it was a crime, but the previous administration didn't always enforce it (true, but not a lie therefore)? I'm curious what lie you think he said?

The reality is that Trump was looking at an increase in the number of illegal crossing and attempting to deter them by telling potential illegal immigrants that if they do so, they will be incarcerated, and that dragging a child along with them will not magically protect them from that incarceration and likely deportation.

The separation is a secondary (and presumably unintended) side effect of that action. Existing law already mandates that children cannot be held in the adult detention centers for more than 48 hours. So, your choices are:

1. Hold the family for 48 hours and then release them into the US with a court date for them to return for deportation hearing (which pretty much nobody shows up for, cause... duh).

2. Hold the adults in the detention center, and remove the children to separate facilities as required by law.


One of the criticisms of the Obama administration is that he was choosing option 1. Sure, this kept the families together, but it basically turned "show up with a child" into a free pass into the US. And with such a short time frame involved, it was nearly impossible to determine if the child with that parent or parents was actually related to them at all (let's not forget that it's not like folks sneaking across the border are likely to be carrying identification documentation). So it became a favorite tactic for criminal organizations to use to get their people across the border, and also often resulted in the children being swept up into said criminal organization as well (human trafficing/slavery).

You can condemn the horrible fate of minors being separated from the adults in the detention process, but it's likely a far better outcome than the alternative. This is why it's such a fake outrage issue. We do this all the time in the US in our legal system. How many US citizen minors are some form of state custody every single day in this country? Lot's more than the couple thousand we're talking about in this case, and which is generating so much outrage. Why is one ok, but the other not?

Political optics is the only reason. Crying about the fate of the children is a great tool to use to attack the "other guy's policies". Again though, in this case, the alternatives weren't so great either. With this solution, as much as it's sadly being attacked (and now backtracked because of the absurd crying), we can say that we know these children will be re-united with their families once the process is completed, and they wont be sold into slavery, servitude, or pushed into underground *** industries. With the previous process we know that some percentage of them were. And for what? "Saving" the rest to more easily live in the US illegally? To become the next generation of "Dreamers" who we'll have to deal with later?

So yay for "saving the children".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#260 Jun 26 2018 at 6:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious, Improper Entry (ie: sneaking across the border) is illegal. No one has to "criminalize" it. It's already a crime.

It's been previously handled as a civil matter. I'm sorry you didn't understand what "criminalize" meant. And that you don't understand how the immigration system typically works in these instances so you typed a bunch of stuff that didn't really mean much.

But, hey, I bet you actually believed Trump when he said his hands were totally tied up until he decided that they weren't! Ooohhh... must be those politically motivated Democrats! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#261 Jun 26 2018 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,383 posts
I'll also point out that the "zero tolerance" policy only applied to those caught illegally entering the US. So one can also argue that if only we had a secure border capable of preventing folks from crossing illegally, then we wouldn't have Border Patrol officers catching groups of illegals well inside the US, and have to detain them after that point, and the issue of what to do with the minors found within those groups wouldn't be so much of an issue.

But heaven forbid we actually try to prevent the problem in the first place. Nope. Let's just bury our heads in the sand and ignore it, and now that we've created no-win scenario, wail and moan about the horrible choices we've put in front of ourselves as a result.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#262 Jun 26 2018 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
Guess what you have to do in order to seek asylum in the United States!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#263 Jun 26 2018 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
DOUBLE!

Edited, Jun 26th 2018 6:32pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#264 Jun 26 2018 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
If you guessed "Be inside the border of the United States", you get a prize!

Two paths to asylum:

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

A defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the U.S. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#265 Jun 26 2018 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,383 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious, Improper Entry (ie: sneaking across the border) is illegal. No one has to "criminalize" it. It's already a crime.

It's been previously handled as a civil matter.


Oh. I see. You're confused. It's a crime. It's always been a crime (well, for a long time anyway). You're confusing the fact that the government can chose to incarcerate (for up to 6 months for first offense) *and* apply a "civil penalty" (of like $50 for first offense), as it being a "crime" or "civil matter" depending on how whomever is in charge wishes to apply things. That's a distinction without a difference, because in both cases, deportation is also the result. Which is where the detention comes in. They're being detained while their legal status is sorted out, and if they are found to be here illegally, will then move into a deportation process.

It's still a crime. The potential for civil penalties in the statute is in addition to the criminal penalties which may be administered (and btw, both are optional penalties which may be levied in addition to the above mentioned deportation process). The fact that the government may levy a fine in addition to other penalties doesn't magically make the crime not be a crime anymore.

Quote:
I'm sorry you didn't understand what "criminalize" meant.


You're kidding, right? It's a crime. The problem is you are using the word "criminalize" in a purely rhetorical manner (ie: designed to generate emotion but not based on fact). Trump didn't make a non-crime a crime, nor did he magically create penalties that weren't there previously.

I'm using the term in its strictly literal meaning: To make something criminal. Which is not what Trump did. In fact, he did nothing at all with regards to the criminal aspect of things. The biggest change was to choices involving the detention/deportation part of the equation. Which has nothing at all to do with "criminalizing" it.

Quote:
And that you don't understand how the immigration system typically works in these instances so you typed a bunch of stuff that didn't really mean much.


Funny how you'll make that claim but not bother to write what you think I got wrong. Do you want me to link to the appropriate US federal statues on Immigration? I can, but I thought we were all at least somewhat on the same page here. Entering the US illegally is a criminal act. Period. It's a violation of federal statute.

Quote:
But, hey, I bet you actually believed Trump when he said his hands were totally tied up until he decided that they weren't! Ooohhh... must be those politically motivated Democrats! Smiley: laugh


He was clearly referring to the already existing statue that prohibits minors from being held in a detention center in the same rooms with adults after X amount of time. And no, it's not that his hands were tied, but that the only real alternative is to house family units in their own separate quarters (so to speak anyway). Which is enormously expensive compared to simply putting all the men in one area, the women in another, and the children in a third.

It's a cost issue, and the default is to divide everyone up that way, since it's the most cost effective way to do it. And it's not like this is so burdensome relative to everything else going on. It's not intended to be long term housing or anything either (intended, of course being the operative word here). I get that we live in a first world country, so we view things in a first world way, but I somehow find the idea that people who have trekked hundreds of miles (at least in some cases) across open land, camping along the way, living in ditches and dealing with hunger and thirst, dealing with multiple possible life threatening conditions like thieves, sexual predators, drug cartels, etc, that upon being captured in the US that being placed in facilities where they have food, water, shelter, protection from assault, etc, is a horrific thing because... OMG! They're going to put the children in a different building than the men, and them in a different building than the women. And they might not be able to see each other every day. Maybe.

Total first world issue. These people have dealt with far far worse. I mean, I suppose we could cry and moan unless we put every single one of them up in a 5 star hotel or something. Where's the tolerance level going to be? What level is "ok" for you guys? I suspect that nothing short of "let them free in the US!" will ever satisfy many people. So yeah, I'm not putting a lot of weight on the crying and moaning.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 Jun 26 2018 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
gbaji wrote:
He was clearly referring to the already existing statue that prohibits minors from being held in a detention center in the same rooms with adults after X amount of time.


So, you're saying that there is a sculpture somewhere of some person that creating this crisis? I need pictures of this statue, or I won't believe it!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#267 Jun 26 2018 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,383 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
If you guessed "Be inside the border of the United States", you get a prize!

Two paths to asylum:

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

A defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the U.S. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).


I'm not sure what your point is here. You're not under the mistaken impression that even a small percentage of those caught illegally entering the US are actually seeking asylum, are you? The vast majority are entering the US for purely economic reasons. Yes, many of them claim asylum status after being caught, cause... why not try that as a way of staying in the US. It's a fallback.

The usual means of seeking asylum (for those actually doing so and not using it after the fact and/or as a loophole to stay in the US longer), is to step on US soil and immediately declare a need for asylum. This is usually done at a border crossing, or on the doorstep of a US embassy abroad. You are aware that the area you walk into with the border agents who check your ID and ask you questions is technically "US soil", as is the entry area of any US embassy (or lobby of the building in some cases, depending on the layout).

That's how the rules are intended to be set. Of course, there's nothing preventing someone from requesting it after being caught. But an easy question to ask is: "if they hadn't been caught, would they have marched up to an immigration office and requested asylum?". In most cases that we're talking about here, the answer is: No.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268 Jun 26 2018 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
It's almost like I posted something, just to make you waste time typing up a page of word salad!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#269 Jun 26 2018 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
Oh, also, an embassy doesn't automatically count.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#270 Jun 27 2018 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,665 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes, many of them claim asylum status after being caught, cause... why not try that as a way of staying in the US.
What happened to "Just take their word for it" ?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#271 Jun 27 2018 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious, Improper Entry (ie: sneaking across the border) is illegal. No one has to "criminalize" it. It's already a crime.
It's been previously handled as a civil matter.
Oh. I see. You're confused.

"Criminalization" refers to Improper Entry being treated as a criminal offense with jail time. This was rarely the case previously because it was treated as a civil matter, handled with a fine. Civil matters against the government are not referred to as a "crime"; you are not a "criminal" for getting a littering fine or failing to mow your lawn or filing your taxes late. There is a reason why we have a criminal justice system as a subset of the overall justice system. This actually make a significant difference since you have the Constitutional right to legal representation in a criminal justice case, but not in a civil trial (even against the government).

Therefore, I said that "Trump decided to implement a 'zero tolerance' policy and criminalize Improper Entry" to which you got all confused and flustered and word vomited a meaningless slurry of whatever you found on National Review Online in the past hour. And are still apparently confused since you're saying "Uh HUH is TOO a crime because it's like totally a law and stuff!!!"
Quote:
Entering the US illegally is a criminal act. Period. It's a violation of federal statute.

So is violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. You do realize that, say, being fined under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act means you committed an unlawful act but it doesn't make you a criminal, right? No? Too complex for you? Ok then.

Edited, Jun 27th 2018 12:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#272 Jun 27 2018 at 11:06 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,624 posts
I got pulled over for speeding, so they took my boys away and sent them to a prison in Wyoming. Happens all the time...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#273 Jun 27 2018 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,759 posts
Debalic wrote:
I got pulled over for speeding, so they took my boys away and sent them to a prison in Wyoming. Happens all the time...


Well, you break the law, you gotta face the consequences.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#274 Jun 27 2018 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
All I'm seeing is: Break law = free child support.

And these people claim to be against a nanny state... Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#275 Jun 28 2018 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,665 posts
Time to up my jaywalking.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#276 Jun 28 2018 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,383 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes, many of them claim asylum status after being caught, cause... why not try that as a way of staying in the US.
What happened to "Just take their word for it" ?


It went to the same place it does when someone only offers to pay for something after they are caught walking out the door with it in their pocket. If you really honestly believe you have a case for amnesty, you'd walk up to a border crossing station and request it. Some do this. The vast majority to not. The odds that anyone who's caught by border patrol agents while hiking across the desert in the middle of nowhere was actually planning on reporting to an immigration office and requesting asylum is more or less zero.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 91 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (91)