History will judge us
Morganna said:Sometimes it looks as if the country wasn't ready for a woman. Our loss
For sure. In fact we weren’t ready for a Black Man in 2008. The nation would be in much better shape if McCain had won.
Red_Barchetta said:
Morganna said:For sure. In fact we weren’t ready for a Black Man in 2008. The nation would be in much better shape if McCain had won.
Sometimes it looks as if the country wasn't ready for a woman. Our loss
I fail to see that logic. At all.
(or am I missing the sarcasm?)
Red_Barchetta said:
Morganna said:For sure. In fact we weren’t ready for a Black Man in 2008. The nation would be in much better shape if McCain had won.
Sometimes it looks as if the country wasn't ready for a woman. Our loss
I also don't think we were really ready to end slavery
In the Boer war many years ago, the British brought in their conventional armies to the flat lands of
of South Africa, thinking they would easily roll over the vastly out numbered Dutch/Boer settlers.......who had little in the way of artillery.
But the Boers were expert horsemen and crack shots with their rifles. They held the Brits to a draw.
This was not acceptable to London. So they developed a new strategy. Detainment camps for the
Boer women and children. I have another word for their camps but I will use their parlance,
With their families in the camps and not able to be freed.........the inevitable happened.
When the Brits could not win on the battlefield they gained by introducing terror tactics
Just today I read of the large number of Democratic Congresspeople who sponsored and signed a bill forbidding the practice of separating families
How many Republicans signed the bill............0
The Republicans are now all in the process of removing every mirror from their homes.
DaveSchmidt said:
BCC said:A few stipulations, and then a question:
LOST said:I would suggest you have a problem.
cramer said:So be helpful. Suggest something.
Maybe Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon can protest.
Excuse me, that wasn't helpful.
Previously, having a child with you was, in effect, having a 'get out of jail card )
That didn't work too well since a great many people never showed up for the 'hearing' set for some time in the future.
The new tougher policy puts illegal border crosssers in jail. In order to maintain family coherence either you set the adults free as in the past, lock the kids up with them, or accept the third unsatisfactory option and make it acceptable ( considering the politics involved, not likely)
1. About 50,000 people from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras sought defensive asylum last year. I don’t know if that number included children, or how many of those individuals brought children with them, but — roughly — let’s say we’re talking about a few tens of thousands.
2. The vast majority of such asylum requests are denied, but a few thousand from those countries do get approved each year.
3. So essentially, in the interest of deterring a few tens of thousands of cases a year, the U.S. has established that the cost of access to its defensive asylum system (in which your odds may be slim, but there is a chance) is this: You give up your children.
Does that sound about right?
No, it doesn't.
If you break the law by crossing illegally you will be arrested. When some one is arrested and jailed their children are not jailed with them.
If you show up at a checkpoint with proper paper work, as many just did, you have a chance of being allowed in, as many just were.
Are you suggesting every one who shows up at a check point and gets a hearing should be accepted?
BCC said:
DaveSchmidt said:
BCC said:A few stipulations, and then a question:
LOST said:I would suggest you have a problem.
cramer said:So be helpful. Suggest something.
Maybe Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon can protest.
Excuse me, that wasn't helpful.
Previously, having a child with you was, in effect, having a 'get out of jail card )
That didn't work too well since a great many people never showed up for the 'hearing' set for some time in the future.
The new tougher policy puts illegal border crosssers in jail. In order to maintain family coherence either you set the adults free as in the past, lock the kids up with them, or accept the third unsatisfactory option and make it acceptable ( considering the politics involved, not likely)
1. About 50,000 people from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras sought defensive asylum last year. I don’t know if that number included children, or how many of those individuals brought children with them, but — roughly — let’s say we’re talking about a few tens of thousands.
2. The vast majority of such asylum requests are denied, but a few thousand from those countries do get approved each year.
3. So essentially, in the interest of deterring a few tens of thousands of cases a year, the U.S. has established that the cost of access to its defensive asylum system (in which your odds may be slim, but there is a chance) is this: You give up your children.
Does that sound about right?
No, it doesn't.
If you break the law by crossing illegally you will be arrested. When some one is arrested and jailed their children are not jailed with them.
If you show up at a checkpoint with proper paper work, as many just did, you have a chance of being allowed in, as many just were.
Are you suggesting every one who shows up at a check point and gets a hearing should be accepted?
Jesus Wept.
No one at any point in this thread argued in favor of admitting illegals. Your point is pointless and stop with the rhetorical questions.
The policy of interring illegals has gone on since the beginning of time. With one very large difference . Families have never been separated from each other. Four year olds have not till now been snatched away from their mothers
And now we have a heartless Chief Executive who cannot get his wall built..........he is showing the big pout and as usual blaming some one else,
This is a terror tactic.....no mistake and this one will cost him big time.
For now my thoughts are not with him.
BCC said:
Are you suggesting every one who shows up at a check point and gets a hearing should be accepted?
No, I’m not suggesting that. There is a process to determine who should be accepted. Are you suggesting that the price to avail oneself of that process — giving up one’s children — is satisfactory?
DaveSchmidt said:
BCC said:No, I’m not suggesting that. There is a process to determine who should be accepted. Are you suggesting that the price to avail oneself of that process — giving up one’s children — is satisfactory?
Are you suggesting every one who shows up at a check point and gets a hearing should be accepted?
The process to see who should be accepted does in no way involve giving up one's children.
The avoidance of of that process, the breaking of the law, is what results in that.
author said:
BCC said:Jesus Wept.
DaveSchmidt said:
BCC said:A few stipulations, and then a question:
LOST said:I would suggest you have a problem.
cramer said:So be helpful. Suggest something.
Maybe Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon can protest.
Excuse me, that wasn't helpful.
Previously, having a child with you was, in effect, having a 'get out of jail card )
That didn't work too well since a great many people never showed up for the 'hearing' set for some time in the future.
The new tougher policy puts illegal border crosssers in jail. In order to maintain family coherence either you set the adults free as in the past, lock the kids up with them, or accept the third unsatisfactory option and make it acceptable ( considering the politics involved, not likely)
1. About 50,000 people from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras sought defensive asylum last year. I don’t know if that number included children, or how many of those individuals brought children with them, but — roughly — let’s say we’re talking about a few tens of thousands.
2. The vast majority of such asylum requests are denied, but a few thousand from those countries do get approved each year.
3. So essentially, in the interest of deterring a few tens of thousands of cases a year, the U.S. has established that the cost of access to its defensive asylum system (in which your odds may be slim, but there is a chance) is this: You give up your children.
Does that sound about right?
No, it doesn't.
If you break the law by crossing illegally you will be arrested. When some one is arrested and jailed their children are not jailed with them.
If you show up at a checkpoint with proper paper work, as many just did, you have a chance of being allowed in, as many just were.
Are you suggesting every one who shows up at a check point and gets a hearing should be accepted?
No one at any point in this thread argued in favor of admitting illegals. Your point is pointless and stop with the rhetorical questions.
The policy of interring illegals has gone on since the beginning of time. With one very large difference . Families have never been separated from each other. Four year olds have not till now been snatched away from their mothers
And now we have a heartless Chief Executive who cannot get his wall built..........he is showing the big pout and as usual blaming some one else,
This is a terror tactic.....no mistake and this one will cost him big time.
For now my thoughts are not with him.
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
When people get arrested and end up in jail their children do not accompany them.
The distinction being that people with hearts and souls don't lump parents desperate to provide their children with a future in the same class as thieves and murderers.
BCC said:
The process to see who should be accepted does in no way involve giving up one's children.
The avoidance of of that process, the breaking of the law, is what results in that.
I could be wrong. It’s also possible that you are. From U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (boldface mine):
Defensive Asylum Processing with EOIR
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).
Individuals are generally placed into defensive asylum processing in one of two ways:·
- They are referred to an Immigration Judge by USCIS after they have been determined to be ineligible for asylum at the end of the affirmative asylum process, or
- They are placed in removal proceedings because they:
- Were apprehended (or caught) in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry without proper legal documents or in violation of their immigration status, OR
- Were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trying to enter the United States without proper documentation, were placed in the expedited removal process, and were found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an Asylum Officer. See Questions & Answers: Credible Fear Screenings for more information on the Credible Fear Process.
As I understand it, if you’re taking the defensive asylum route now, your children are being taken away from you, without exception. Which makes that the price of that process.
Terrorists will put innocent people in harms way, as a way to create leverage in negotiations. There is a reason you should never negotiate with a terrorist (even if you are tempted to help the innocent lives): once they see it works, they will do it more often and put even more innocent lives at risk.
DaveSchmidt said:
As I understand it, if you’re taking the defensive asylum route now, your children are being taken away from you, without exception. Which makes that the price of that process.
We are not talking about removal from the US we are discussing entry to the US.
Parents wishing to enter either get accepted or rejected. At no point are their children taken from them.
BCC said:
DaveSchmidt said:We are not talking about removal from the US we are discussing entry to the US.
As I understand it, if you’re taking the defensive asylum route now, your children are being taken away from you, without exception. Which makes that the price of that process.
See the bulleted items above. Parents who enter the U.S. illegally and seek asylum after they are caught (or turn themselves in) are being separated from their children.
Hence, the cost of the due process to adjudicate your illegal entry in order to seek asylum — known as defensive asylum — is the loss of your children.
To be clear, BCC, I’m not trying to argue. I’m trying to clarify. I’ve read up just a little bit on defensive asylum (out of curiosity, have you?), and this is how the equation strikes me: In order to deter a year’s worth of illegal immigrants who could fill a baseball stadium, the U.S. has made the separation of children part of the price of a family’s access to the defensive asylum process.
This is sort of like the torture debate. There are not two sides to that debate either.
author said:
Jesus Wept.
No one at any point in this thread argued in favor of admitting illegals. Your point is pointless and stop with the rhetorical questions.
The policy of interring illegals has gone on since the beginning of time. With one very large difference . Families have never been separated from each other. Four year olds have not till now been snatched away from their mothers
And now we have a heartless Chief Executive who cannot get his wall built..........he is showing the big pout and as usual blaming some one else,
This is a terror tactic.....no mistake and this one will cost him big time.
For now my thoughts are not with him.
Exodus 34:7 says that God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Disturbing, but directly from the good book. And my understanding (from Sunday school of long ago) is that Jesus believed every word of scripture. In light of these facts, it would seem that Jesus may indeed be weeping because this situation is as old as time (namely, sins of the parent being visited upon the child(ren)).
==========================================================
Exodus 34:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34%3A7&version=KJV
All the arguments for separating children from their parents are an argument for sacrificing one's heart and soul on the alter of The Law. Trump and fellow travelers would have you believe they are obligated to do this and that it is somehow justifiable. This simply isn't the case. The policy is cruel and heartless and needs to stop. We don't need yet another stain on our nation.
Just heard on MSNBC from the Director of Migrant Rights and Justice for the Women's Immigration Commission that a program cancelled by the Trump administration called the Family Case Management Program, which put ankle bracelets on the parents and released them into the community along with their children, had a 99% success rate. It cost $35/per family a day as opposed to $100 to $1000/day.
Everyone who is troubled by this policy of separating young children from their parents should call Congress. Apparently, phone calls are more effective than emails: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/heres-why-you-should-call-not-email-your-legislators.html
History will judge us, and the verdict will be harsh. The U.S. government has been guilty of atrocity before, and this is yet another. I was so glad to see Laura Bush's Op Ed piece yesterday. Perhaps she'll shame other Republicans into doing what's right, but I'm not holding my breath.
Good article, full of suggestions: https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/how-to-help-fight-family-separation-policy-immigration-trump.html
DaveSchmidt said:
To be clear, BCC, I’m not trying to argue. I’m trying to clarify. I’ve read up just a little bit on defensive asylum (out of curiosity, have you?), and this is how the equation strikes me: In order to deter a year’s worth of illegal immigrants who could fill a baseball stadium, the U.S. has made the separation of children part of the price of a family’s access to the defensive asylum process.
You agree children are not taken from their parents when they attempt to enter at a check point with proper paper work whether they are admitted or rejected.
You agree that people who try to enter illegally can end up losing their children since children are not sent to jail when their parents are.
Are you suggesting children be incarcerated with their parents or that 'defensive asylum' provides law breakers some kind of immunity to the law?
IOWs how do you propose to treat people who break the law. Or do we change the law and if so, how do we do that?
BCC said:IOWs how do you propose to treat people who break the law. Or do we change the law and if so, how do we do that?
So you are in the "the Law is the Law and we have no choice" camp.
BCC said:
Are you suggusting that children be incarcerated with their parents or that 'defensive asylum' provides law breakers some kind of immunity to the law?
IOWs how do you propose to treat people who break the law. Or do we change the law and if so, how do we do that?
It doesn’t provide people with immunity. It provides people with a legal avenue to be granted asylum even though they entered the U.S. illegally. In other words, if the pro-deterrence outlook that you raised (and that I’m responding to) is: “If parents don’t want to lose their children they shouldn’t come here illegally in the first place” — then what about the asylum process specifically set up for people who come here illegally in the first place?
Now, maybe the pro-deterrence outlook concludes, hopefully after weighing the reasons in favor of defensive asylum, that it makes no sense to dangle a possible reward for illegal entry and that this particular path to asylum should be discontinued. I was simply calling it to your attention, because it wasn’t clear you were weighing it — or the fact that a few thousand illegal immigrants each year are deemed worthy of asylum through it — in your own deterrence argument.
(From the other perspective, one proposal for how to treat people who break the law would be to return to the previous policy and chalk up the court no-shows as a lesser evil than the separation of children from their parents.)
I will leave it with this:
The Truth about Separating Kids
By Rich Lowry
May 28, 2018 10:37 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/
Entering the country without proper papers is a misdemeanor, not a felony. Misdemeanor's are usually treated by issuance of a Summons rather than by arrest. In cases where someone is actually arrested for a misdemeanor that person is entitled to reasonable bail or even R.O.R., that is release on one's own recognizance without the posting of bail.
Someone who enters the country illegally is subject to detention by that very fact. The only reason to charge that person with a misdemeanor is so that their children can be separated from them. This is being done as a deterence.
It's despicable. The people behind the policy are the ones who should be charged with a crime against humanity.
drummerboy said:
This is sort of like the torture debate. There are not two sides to that debate either.
tjohn said:
All the arguments for separating children from their parents are an argument for sacrificing one's heart and soul on the alter of The Law. Trump and fellow travelers would have you believe they are obligated to do this and that it is somehow justifiable. This simply isn't the case. The policy is cruel and heartless and needs to stop. We don't need yet another stain on our nation.
Nuff said.
BCC said:
I will leave it with this:
The Truth about Separating Kids
By Rich Lowry
May 28, 2018 10:37 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/
I'll leave it at this:
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
Small but important clarification: History will judge those of us who voted for Trump