Do you think all migrants, no migrants or some migrants should be vetted before entering the USA?

[gsdx]

^ That man makes me want to puke.

 

[KaraBulut]

The only recent CNN link I see in this thread is a video segment from a TV show consisting of political commentary by political commentators. I presume you are referring to the remarks by Bill Kristol?

I think he means the linked analysis by Stephen Collinson entitled The law or the President: The Trump appointees' dilemma. Collinson isn't an editorial/opinion writer. He's a reporter assigned to the White House and in his analysis piece, Collinson cites the primary sources that he uses in his analysis.

the Donald now blames President Obama for the child separation policy and claims that he was the one that stopped it

The man really has an inadequacy issue, doesn't he? He's always blaming Obama and Hillary for his own shortcomings.

Obama took a lot of political flack as the "Deporter in Chief" and stats do support that his Administration increased deportations of criminals and visa violators. The Press along the border was very critical of the Obama administration's protracted incarceration of families, not separations.

This is another one of those "are you going to believe me or your lying eyes" things that Trump says when we have the video of Sessions announcing the child-separation policy and Congress has the documentation from Dec-2017 that says that this was a DHS policy and that Trump pushed for it.

Trump lies like a hound dog on a summer day. Little that he says anymore is the truth.

 

[opinterph]

The only recent CNN link I see in this thread is a video segment from a TV show consisting of political commentary by political commentators.

I think he means the linked analysis by Stephen Collinson entitled The law or the President: The Trump appointees' dilemma.

I still don’t see it.

---

@ mikey3000

It helps if you make clear to whom (or to what content) you are responding in your posts. Generally speaking, random remarks are subject to removal if they fail to demonstrate an obvious connection to the discussion.

Please quote the JUB post containing whatever CNN “piece” you indicate is “linked above.”

 

[gsdx]

This is another one of those "are you going to believe me or your lying eyes" things that Trump says when we have the video of Sessions announcing the child-separation policy and Congress has the documentation from Dec-2017 that says that this was a DHS policy and that Trump pushed for it.

Trump lies like a hound dog on a summer day. Little that he says anymore is the truth.

Unfortunately, we know very well how much credence Trump supporters put into his lies and alternate facts. What gets me is that Trump can say something on Monday and the complete opposite on Tuesday and his supporters will believe both. There is no distinction between his lies and his truths.

 

[mikey3000]

Based upon some of the latest reports, the President is instructing officers and leadership of the DHS to violate US law[/URL] and defy court orders.

I still don’t see it.

---

@ mikey3000

It helps if you make clear to whom (or to what content) you are responding in your posts. Generally speaking, random remarks are subject to removal if they fail to demonstrate an obvious connection to the discussion.

Please quote the JUB post containing whatever CNN “piece” you indicate is “linked above.”

This is the quote..
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/donald-trump-kirstjen-nielsen-immigration/index.html

It would also help if you wouldn't censor and/or edit all my replies and release them many hours after I try to post them. As you can see, it really confused the issues. Just saying.

 

[johaninsc]

This is the quote..
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/donald-trump-kirstjen-nielsen-immigration/index.html

It would also help if you wouldn't censor and/or edit all my replies and release them many hours after I try to post them. As you can see, it really confused the issues. Just saying.

that's not a quote from JUB...that's a link

please quote the Jub Post


you know how to use that function

 

[johaninsc]

I'm reminded of a post from another forum...

STandard thing with alt right. Make claim, innundate people with links behind wich are lengthy unreadable reports sometimes in pdf formate.
The point is to look like they are proofing their point, not to actually proof it.

Normally to a reply such as yours the alt rightist will reply "Well read it for yourself its right in there" ANd then you reply "no it's not", Then they accuse you off reading comprehension problems and when you start pushing for page and paragraph the alt rightist will accuse you off laziness and call it proof you didn't bother to read at all.

The point is too look like they are right to people on the fence, they link evidence, you dont and apparently cant be bothered to even read. They arent talking to you, they are trying to convince dumb people. Just the fact that you say "oi, your links proof nothing" makes you not who they want to convince. Plenty of people will assume the linker is right because no-one in their right minds links evidence that does not support them, so they wont even check if you were right about the info not being there.

-largePenisLover

also, I don't think that English is this poster's first language

 

[gsdx]

also, I don't think that English is this poster's first language

I don't think so, either, but his message comes through loud and clear. No double-talk, no psychobabble, no meaningless repetition, no nothing.

 

[mikey3000]

No. “What” is crossing the southern border is now much more likely to include children and entire families seeking to escape violent crime, unrestrained gangs, and government failure by Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to protect the poor in those countries against threats and violence. According to your definition, those people are not migrants.

No. Reading the first definition of migrant again. There is no war or government persecution they are fleeing, they are not refugees, they are migrants. They fit the definition to a "T".

Note: Most US migration happens to and from regions within the country and doesn’t involve the crossing of national borders. In recent decades US migration has resulted in a loss of population in the Northeastern and Midwestern states and an increase of population in Western and Southern states.

What does this have to do with the thread?

 

[TX-Beau]

I see it's same old shit, different day around here.

 

[gsdx]

No. Reading the first definition of migrant again. There is no war or government persecution they are fleeing, they are not refugees, they are migrants. They fit the definition to a "T".

So, people fearing for their lives as a result of crime violence doesn't count? Do their lives not matter to you?

 

[mikey3000]

No, violent crime doesn't count. You shouldn't be asking me if their lives matter, ask their government. I still believe that ALL lives matter, remember?

 

[KaraBulut]

So, people fearing for their lives as a result of crime violence doesn't count? Do their lives not matter to you?

Honestly, it's a moot question.

The US is a nation of laws. There are judges that hear the asylum seekers' claims and make a decision based upon their circumstance and immigration law.

The stats say that immigrants who can afford an attorney are more likely to be granted asylum. Overall about 1/3 of those who apply are granted asylum by the immigration judges.

The other reason that this is a moot point is that many of the people who are crossing the border are only being held temporarily. Because of the failed policies of the Trump Administration, the shelters are at capacity and the number of people crossing the border has increased. The Trump Administration doesn't want their base to know that illegal immigration and the number of people asking for asylum has been increasing since Trump took office. When the shelters get full, they just dump asylum seekers at bus stations in nearby cities like El Paso and Brownsville.

 

[mikey3000]

So, what, now catch and release isn't enough? What should they do, give them a house, free health and dental care, an education, a car and cash?

 

[Alnitak]

Honestly, it's a moot question.

The US is a nation of laws. There are judges that hear the asylum seekers' claims and make a decision based upon their circumstance and immigration law.

The stats say that immigrants who can afford an attorney are more likely to be granted asylum. Overall about 1/3 of those who apply are granted asylum by the immigration judges.

The other reason that this is a moot point is that many of the people who are crossing the border are only being held temporarily. Because of the failed policies of the Trump Administration, the shelters are at capacity and the number of people crossing the border has increased. The Trump Administration doesn't want their base to know that illegal immigration and the number of people asking for asylum has been increasing since Trump took office. When the shelters get full, they just dump asylum seekers at bus stations in nearby cities like El Paso and Brownsville.

Laws can be dispensed with under discretion. There are many such examples of this, and it happens all the time in our courts, e.g. enforcement of marijuana laws in the United States is increasingly lax. The law on this matter, however, is so infamous as to escape respect entirely, and unenforceable by any moral person. According to the system, by your own account, poor asylum seekers are less human. Also, the immigration court in Baltimore is notoriously difficult to find, maybe purposefully so, and this is just one example in the 94 federal districts. Some asylum immigrants can't find it, or don't know enough English to ask for directions, and then miss their hearings and get deported. The Spanish speaking attorney I used to work for ran into this problem with some frequency. You say judges make a decision "based upon their circumstance;" would that it only be true as you say.

 

[KaraBulut]

Laws can be dispensed with under discretion. There are many such examples of this, and it happens all the time in our courts, e.g. enforcement of marijuana laws in the United States is increasingly lax. The law on this matter, however, is so infamous as to escape respect entirely, and unenforceable by any moral person. According to the system, by your own account, poor asylum seekers are less human. Also, the immigration court in Baltimore is notoriously difficult to find, maybe purposefully so, and this is just one example in the 94 federal districts. Some asylum immigrants can't find it, or don't know enough English to ask for directions, and then miss their hearings and get deported. The Spanish speaking attorney I used to work for ran into this problem with some frequency. You say judges make a decision "based upon their circumstance;" would that it only be true as you say.

Well, both the courts at the border and the one in Baltimore are part of the same Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the DOJ. But their caseloads are different. The Immigration Judge Corps (IJC) along the southern border is handling (or attempting to handle) an overwhelming volume of asylum cases.

There is a policy manual for the IJC- it's here. Page 18 starts the discussion about the responsibilities of the IJC.

The whole system is a mess. ICE and USBP were put under DHS after 9/11. HHS handles the children's detention. The State Department also has a role and is in a separate silo in the Executive Branch. DHS first processes immigrants seeking asylum and the determination of the claim for credible fear and reasonable fear. The claim is then presented to the immigration court which answers to DOJ.

What is totally fucked up about the EOIR system is that these "judges" in the Immigration Judge Corps don't have the power and discretion that judges in the Federal Judiciary have. They're employees who report up to the Attorney General and they're civil servants who are hired like any other civil servant. They're also subject to the whims of the Executive branch, as we've seen over the past 2 years. Because both the DHS attorneys and the IJC judges are civil servants, they're oddly peers (unlike the Judiciary where judges control the courtroom and can dictate behavior of attorneys in their courtrooms).

Sessions did a lot of tampering with the EOIR during his tenure there with the intention of preventing immigration judges from delaying forced removal orders. Where a judge in the Judiciary has control over their docket, the IJC judges can be reassigned to desk jobs if they are not consistent with the Attorney General's priorities.

But the EOIR does have laws that they have to follow and they are ultimately the branch of government that decides whether an immigration has a valid claim for asylum.