Must Read Trump backs down, orders end to family separations at U.S. border

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Works well unless you’re p1ss poor and have nothing to offer but your labour.

 

The American Dream open to all but for the p1ss poor with nothing to offer but their labour. (Let’s forget the millions like them who passed through Ellis Island).

Life is tough if you don't choose your parents wisely.

[bushdoctor]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just like your forefathers did.

My forefathers? Another false statement. 

[bushdoctor]

6 hours ago, wayned said:

The people that have crossed the border and turn themselves into the border patrol are physically in the US and should be able to declare that they are seeking asylum and be taken to an office and be allowed to apply by filling out a I-589 form, one page.  The form is available  and fill-able online, just google I-589 form. You do not have to apply at a port of entry.  It seems that the border patrol/ICE are treating all that cross the border illegally as illegal immigrants and are not allowing them the option of applying for asylum at their offices as the law allows.

 

" If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum. "

They can apply for asylum. The asylum claim is still legal, but you’ve committed a crime (illegal entry) to make it.

The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy targets people who come in the second way — the “wrong way.” In theory, all asylum seekers caught by Border Patrol agents after crossing illegally are referred to US attorneys and charged with illegal entry or reentry, even while their asylum claims are being processed (and while any children they came with are being processed as “unaccompanied alien children”).

[Scott]

26 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

They can apply for asylum. The asylum claim is still legal, but you’ve committed a crime (illegal entry) to make it.

The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy targets people who come in the second way — the “wrong way.” In theory, all asylum seekers caught by Border Patrol agents after crossing illegally are referred to US attorneys and charged with illegal entry or reentry, even while their asylum claims are being processed (and while any children they came with are being processed as “unaccompanied alien children”).

Children who arrive with parents or family members are not unaccompanied.  

[bushdoctor]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

Children who arrive with parents or family members are not unaccompanied.  

They become unaccompanied when their parents are arrested and detained. 

[Scott]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

They become unaccompanied when their parents are arrested and detained. 

No, they don't.  

 

I worked with asylum claims for many years.   They are not an unaccompanied minor.

 

[bushdoctor]

If a child comes with someone who gets incarserated that person is no longer available to be the guardian. 

[Scott]

8 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

If a child comes with someone who gets incarserated that person is no longer available to be the guardian. 

It has nothing to do with how they are classified or how they are screened.   They are not unaccompanied minors.   That is a legal definition.  

[Scott]

Inflammatory post and replies removed.   Continue to post deliberately inaccurate information and a suspension will be given.   

[bushdoctor]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

It has nothing to do with how they are classified or how they are screened.   They are not unaccompanied minors.   That is a legal definition.  

I don’t doubt your sincerity or experience with asylum applicants. I’m just going by what my research shows. As always, it could be wrong.  

 

“Nielsen, June 18: What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law. Everyone is subject to prosecution. When DHS refers a case against a parent or legal guardian for criminal prosecution, the parent or legal guardian will be placed into the U.S. Marshals Service custody for pretrial determination, pursuant to an order by a federal judge. And any accompanied child will be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services and will be reclassified as an unaccompanied alien child. That is in accordance with the TVPRA — a law that was passed by Congress — and a following court order, neither which are actions the Trump administration has taken.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/720550002

 

[Scott]

That is an internal classification of how they will deal with separating the family.   It does not bear any significance on an asylum claim.   For an Unaccompanied Minor, they are screened differently than an adult and there are more options for them to be allowed placement in the country, even if a clear claim to refugee status cannot be determined.  

 

They are not to be confused with children who cross the border without a parent/guardian.   It is a very important distinction in how they are dealt with.  

[bushdoctor]

35 minutes ago, Scott said:

That is an internal classification of how they will deal with separating the family.   It does not bear any significance on an asylum claim.   For an Unaccompanied Minor, they are screened differently than an adult and there are more options for them to be allowed placement in the country, even if a clear claim to refugee status cannot be determined.  

 

They are not to be confused with children who cross the border without a parent/guardian.   It is a very important distinction in how they are dealt with.  

I’m your opinion, what would be the purpose of reclassifying them from accompanied to unaccompanied when the adult guardian is arrested? 

[Scott]

yWhen a child is placed in care away from the parent/legal guardian there has to be some legal reason for doing so.   In State Courts they are classified as either Abused, Abandoned or Neglected.   This pertains only to the situation with the child, it does not necessarily mean there will be action against the parents (probably about 25% there is).   Those laws are designed primarily to protect the children.

 

Since the children are being separated by the federal gov't, it has to come up with some legal justification/classification.   Since there removal does not fit with any of the existing definitions, they have come up with their own classification.   The terminology does not change their relationship to the fate of the family, if it did, they would be screened independently of their parents and that violates a number of international covenants.   It is also expensive

and cumbersome, since children can't easily articulate any claim to persecution.   

 

The federal gov't is a bad position to be dealing with the care issues in these cases.   The states have the bureaucracy and methodology to do this, the federal gov't has very little experience in it and that is why children have been moved thousands of miles from parents and a good number have been 'lost' in the system.   States Social Services are much better at keeping track of these cases and can do so much more cheaply than the federal gov't.

[bushdoctor]

I agree with a lot of those points. 

 

“Because of legal restrictions prohibiting children from being held in jails, the policy resulted in children being taken away at the border and reclassified as unaccompanied minors and then transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agency places unaccompanied minors in a network of more than 100 shelters scattered across the country in 15 states.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/724519002

 

The president can only do so much with executive orders and as we know, the next president can easily reverse those. I would like to see Congress fix these horrible immigration laws. 

[wayned]

48 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

I would like to see Congress fix these horrible immigration laws. 

I would like to see that too but with the state of our political system, starting long before the Trumpty Dumpty era, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.  Trump has even backed off and told congress to forget it in preparation for his next fiasco, the total shutdown of the US government at the end of September if he doesn't get the full 25 billion funding for his "wall" and I think that he will dig his heels in!  I just would like  for someone to explain how they are going to build the wall in the middle of the Rio Grande river which is a 1250 mile boundary between Mexico and the US!

[bushdoctor]

45 minutes ago, wayned said:

I would like to see that too but with the state of our political system, starting long before the Trumpty Dumpty era, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.  Trump has even backed off and told congress to forget it in preparation for his next fiasco, the total shutdown of the US government at the end of September if he doesn't get the full 25 billion funding for his "wall" and I think that he will dig his heels in!  I just would like  for someone to explain how they are going to build the wall in the middle of the Rio Grande river which is a 1250 mile boundary between Mexico and the US!

 

 They won’t. It will be built on land running along the border in the US side. The land will be purchased at fair value under eminent domain laws. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by bushdoctor

[Jingthing]

Just now, bushdoctor said:

 

 They won’t. It will be built on land running along the border in the US side. The land will be purchased at fair value under eminent domain laws. 

Such a wall will never be built at all.

[bushdoctor]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Such a wall will never be built at all.

 

[bushdoctor]

Picture is of a part of the San Diego area border wall. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by bushdoctor

[Voodoochile]

3 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

What a beauty!!

[neeray]

1 hour ago, bushdoctor said:

Picture is of a part of the San Diego area border wall. 

Even if trump got budget approval for his 25 billion dollar wall which will rise to 40 billion, those who want to enter will still enter ...... "where there is the will, there is a way". A cottage industry will spring up using gliders, parachutes, people cannons and a plethora of new methods not even yet conceived.

[bushdoctor]

3 minutes ago, neeray said:

Even if trump got budget approval for his 25 billion dollar wall which will rise to 40 billion, those who want to enter will still enter ...... "where there is the will, there is a way". A cottage industry will spring up using gliders, parachutes, people cannons and a plethora of new methods not even yet conceived.

Nothing is foolproof, but it sounds like you agree it will be a lot harder. I can’t imagine 11 million people parachuting or hang gliding in. 

 

There will also be modern surveillance teqniques in addition to the wall. 

 

You might think of it as taking the keys out of your car and locking it. Does it work? Well I’m sure if someone really wants to steal it they can, but it increases your odds quite noticeably over leaving the keys in the ignition with the door unlocked. I’m not sure what your insurance company would think if you told them your car was stolen and you left the keys in it. 

 

[wayned]

2 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

 They won’t. It will be built on land running along the border in the US side. The land will be purchased at fair value under eminent domain laws. 

Really!  .The government has the right to acquire land under the provisions of the 5thn amendment for a fair market value but any attept will be tied up in court for many years.  You obviously don't know much about the Rio Grande Valley.  The many farmer's and ranchers in both Comedic and the US rely on the river to provide irrigation for their crops and water for their cattle.  In addition there are many recreational companies that offer facilities, tours and outings all along the river.  These people will not allow the government to put them out of business without a significant legal fight which will go on as on as the current immigration spat.  If they have no access to the river their businesses, farms and ranches will cease to exist.  What is the"fair market value" for that. It'll never happen!!!!

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

 

 They won’t. It will be built on land running along the border in the US side. The land will be purchased at fair value under eminent domain laws. 

I see you're avoiding the topic of Trump 'ordering' Congress to stay away from immigration laws till after November. Strange, since you were pointing at Congress and claiming Trump could do nothing, he was only obeying the law.

[bushdoctor]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

Really!  .The government has the right to acquire land under the provisions of the 5thn amendment for a fair market value but any attept will be tied up in court for many years.  You obviously don't know much about the Rio Grande Valley.  The many farmer's and ranchers in both Comedic and the US rely on the river to provide irrigation for their crops and water for their cattle.  In addition there are many recreational companies that offer facilities, tours and outings all along the river.  These people will not allow the government to put them out of business without a significant legal fight which will go on as on as the current immigration spat.  If they have no access to the river their businesses, farms and ranches will cease to exist.  What is the"fair market value" for that. It'll never happen!!!!

 

Are you sure? Trump is a smart guy. 

The government doesn’t have to resolve the lawsuits by agreeing on a fair price or identifying all the landowners to begin construction. Once the Justice Department sues and tells the court it’s taking the land, the property belongs to the federal government. As I said, it’s called Eminent Domain. A legal challenge over fair price could still be made, but wouldn’t stop the land from being acquired.  

 

Then there is invoking the national security clause. That’s is where U.S. presidents have huge leverage and something Trump is well aware of. 

 

About half the Texas land has already been acquired under previous administrations for their own border fence plans. Most people probably wouldn’t have a problem with selling a 25 foot strip of border land for a wall, as long as they got  a fair price. If they refuse then the land will be condemned and will still end up in government hands. Even if an unforeseen situation did arise in a certain area, that wouldn’t prevent construction of the rest of the wall. 

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

Really!  .The government has the right to acquire land under the provisions of the 5thn amendment for a fair market value but any attept will be tied up in court for many years.  You obviously don't know much about the Rio Grande Valley.  The many farmer's and ranchers in both Comedic and the US rely on the river to provide irrigation for their crops and water for their cattle.  In addition there are many recreational companies that offer facilities, tours and outings all along the river.  These people will not allow the government to put them out of business without a significant legal fight which will go on as on as the current immigration spat.  If they have no access to the river their businesses, farms and ranches will cease to exist.  What is the"fair market value" for that. It'll never happen!!!!

You're also neglecting the disastrous ecological impact it will have on wildlife in the border regions.

[bushdoctor]

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I see you're avoiding the topic of Trump 'ordering' Congress to stay away from immigration laws till after November. Strange, since you were pointing at Congress and claiming Trump could do nothing, he was only obeying the law.

 

Avoiding the topic? Trump is right. What’s the point when we already know Congress isn’t going to take action with elections coming up. 

[JCauto]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Are you sure? Trump is a smart guy. 

The government doesn’t have to resolve the lawsuits by agreeing on a fair price or identifying all the landowners to begin construction. Once the Justice Department sues and tells the court it’s taking the land, the property belongs to the federal government. As I said, it’s called Eminent Domain. A legal challenge over fair price could still be made, but wouldn’t stop the land from being acquired.  

 

Then there is invoking the national security clause. That’s is where U.S. presidents have huge leverage and something Trump is well aware of. 

 

About half the Texas land has already been acquired under previous administrations for their own border fence plans. Most people probably wouldn’t have a problem with selling a 25 foot strip of border land for a wall, as long as they got  a fair price. If they refuse then the land will be condemned and will still end up in government hands. Even if an unforeseen situation did arise in a certain area, that wouldn’t prevent construction of the rest of the wall. 

I'm not sure that Trump is a smart guy at all, but that's a different issue. You're correct about eminent domain, they would certainly be able to do that and Trump has already used the "National Security" excuse for tariffs on Canadian steel which are very obviously no such thing. So no doubt he would do it in this case.

 

The only issue I would raise is that there's no way you end up with a mere 25 foot of eminent domain easement when you're talking a national security measure that's being actively patrolled. They'd put a perimeter road of significant size completely around it along with regular access routes for starters. There would be regularly spaced outposts for agents, facilities for the patrolling, etc. This would be a yuuuugggeee project with a massively negative environmental impact that wastes billions of dollars on something that is not a major problem for the US (California crops are already starting to rot in the fields due to lack of workers)...

[Athens]

On 6/21/2018 at 7:46 AM, jackh said:

To be perfectly clear, these laws were passed by Clinton. No liberals objected to them. Obama did not care in 8 years to change them and instead passed them onto Trump. Trump had nothing to do but actually enforce the law.

 

Now Trump has actually tried to temporary stop them via executive order. But still he is the bad guy. Trump haters will always hate, no matter what great things Trump does for this country. So be it. Real Americans could care less about all the liberal haters.

 

Liberal meltdown is a disgrace to America and they won't be satisfied until the US becomes a socialist country.

 

Guess what....ain't NEVER going to happen.

Did Obama order seperation of  f. , you just copy......... Trump following orders made by Obama I do not think so. Sorry but T. is  not making US great- in a few years there will be a new government cleaning the mess he has created. WH slowing melt down no need for action thy mange perfectly by them self.

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Avoiding the topic? Trump is right. What’s the point when we already know Congress isn’t going to take action with elections coming up. 

Sad. First blaming Congress, and when Trump shows this is what he wants still not blaming Trump.

 

Trump is squarely responsible for this.