Did Trump back down?

[LV426]

You continue to be wrong. Trump was following the law as set down by the Flores settlement and the 9th Circuit.

No, it wasn't the law and you repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

The Flores Settlement did not say that families should be ripped apart when they enter custody seeking asylum. The ISAP program, which had a 99.8% retention rate, kept families together and not detained prior to them having their asylum hearing. YOU DEFUNDED THAT PROGRAM BECAUSE IT WAS SUCCESSFUL AND RUINING YOUR NARRATIVE.

So you deliberately created a problem to give you an excuse to act like Nazis.

You're a liar because Nazis are liars.

 

[LV426]

Liberals screamed all week that ALL they wanted was the kids to be put back with their parents. They said nothing about the adults being detained. You are moving the goalposts which we fully expected. Trump expected it.

No, you're moving the goalposts by providing a false choice when there doesn't have to be one. You defunded a successful program because it ruined your narrative about illegal immigrants. So you deliberately created a problem just to have an excuse to act like a Nazi because you are Nazis.

No liberal said that we should trade ripping families apart for indefinite detention. That's a false choice you Nazis gave everyone because you're Nazis.

 

[LV426]

I made no 'claim' or 'argument'; I stated facts as they were reported and cited reports in the media. Obama separated families, detained asylees, and caged kids. He had reasons for so doing, presumably, as does the current Administration.

And now you're running away because I just exposed your shitty playbook and your shitty attempts at false equivalency. You deliberately and intentionally conflated multiple topics just to cast your own shitty position in a better light.

Obama and the Democrats tried to reform immigration but you all obstructed your own bill in 2013.

So this problem is one entirely of your own making, with the intention of using it as an excuse to be even bigger fascists and Nazis.

 

[LV426]

Hard to skip court if you aren't released before the hearing, I suppose.

ISAP released asylum seekers prior to their court date. They were not detained.

Then there's ISAP, with nightly curfews, electronic monitoring devices such as GPS ankle bracelets and voice recognition software for telephone-based reporting, and intensive case management sessions.

But not detained, right? So they were monitored. So what was the reason you defunded what was a successful program? Because you needed an excuse to act like Nazis because you are Nazis.

75 years ago, US policy was to kill Nazis; I say we make America great again.

 

[LV426]

Only 3% of those cut loose wondering off to "somewhere" in our country ever honored their court date.
For the left it was never about keeping families together...it's all about open borders and lawlessness.

Lies from you, of course. What else is to be expected? Nazis lie all the time.

No, people weren't cut loose and this 3% figure of yours is an utter, bald-faced lie.

ISAP, which was the program that monitored those seeking asylum who came illegally, had a 99.8% retention rate for court appearances. That's according to ICE. You just make up shit and hope no one calls you on it because you're a Nazi and that's what Nazis do.

 

[Legion]

Obama and the Democrats tried to reform immigration but you all obstructed your own bill in 2013.

Obama and the DEMOCRATS rammed Obamacare through but failed to apply the same fervor to their reputed efforts to enact immigration reform. Fact.

 

[LV426]

Obama and the DEMOCRATS rammed Obamacare through but failed to apply the same fervor to their reputed efforts to enact immigration reform. Fact.

Why did you vote against your own bill?

 

[Legion]

ISAP released asylum seekers prior to their court date. They were not detained.

That's why I didn't say they were.

So what was the reason you defunded what was a successful program?

ISAP was not a well-maintained program, in that many of its participants seemed to go unmonitored and many who violated the program’s rules never were rearrested by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Although an estimated 5,000 immigrants absconded from ISAP or committed other crimes over the three-year period from 2010 to 2012, ICE often took no action against these immigrants, primarily due to the lack of resources of ICE field offices to handle the rearrests of these individuals, as well as the inability to sustain such case-intensive monitoring services.


http://www.landerholmimmigration.com/intensive-supervision-appearance-program/

 

[Legion]

Why did you vote against your own bill?

You think I was a member of Congress or Senator in 2013?

 

[Legion]

Why did you vote against your own bill?

I didn't.

Why didn't DEMOCRATS enact legislation when they had the chance? They enacted Obamacare without a single Republican vote.

 

[LV426]

hat the libs won't tell you is that relatively few illegals were ever participants in ISAP, and that the program was not as successful as they'd like you to think.

LOL!

So here's the anatomy of a Nazi lie:

You make a vague claim about something, don't back it up with actual data from true sources, then misrepresent what you post.

Nothing in what you posted there denies that 99.8% of those enrolled in ISAP made their court date. So you screech and try to pull focus to infractions done by people while in the program, but stay strangely silent on the ultimate conclusions the program produced, which was a 99.8% success rate in making court appearances.

 

[Legion]

No, it wasn't the law and you repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

Flores isn't law, but ii is binding on the federal government, its agencies, and contractors.

 

[Legion]

Nothing in what you posted there denies that 99.8% of those enrolled in ISAP made their court date.

How many illegals were participants in the ISAP program?

 

[LV426]

ISAP was not a well-maintained program, in that many of its participants seemed to go unmonitored and many who violated the program’s rules never were rearrested by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Although an estimated 5,000 immigrants absconded from ISAP or committed other crimes over the three-year period from 2010 to 2012, ICE often took no action against these immigrants, primarily due to the lack of resources of ICE field offices to handle the rearrests of these individuals, as well as the inability to sustain such case-intensive monitoring services.

Let's pull this shit apart, one sentence at a time, shall we?

ISAP was not a well-maintained program, in that many of its participants seemed to go unmonitored and many who violated the program’s rules never were rearrested by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

So right away, you know this is bullshit because the first paragraph of the link you're pulling this from, says that all of the people enrolled were monitored. Then you say that people violated the program's rules...what rules did they violate? What are you talking about? See how deliberately vague and ambiguous this is? That's no accident, it's intentional. So these people who "violated the rules" (what rules? Who knows? You don't, that's for sure) were never "re-arrested" by ICE. Why? Well, because of funding mostly...there simply weren't enough case managers employed to handle the load. Whose fault is that? Conservatives who cut funding for the program.

So that brings us to the next sentence, but let's break it up according to the punctuation used:

Although an estimated 5,000 immigrants absconded from ISAP or committed other crimes over the three-year period from 2010 to 2012, ICE often took no action against these immigrants

Estimated by whom? And absconded, how? You lump in the 0.2% that didn't make their court date (the absconders) with "other crimes committed". What other crimes were committed? Do you know? And who is making this estimate and how are they making it? It's suspicious because it's deliberately vague and undefined (not to mention completely unsourced). And ICE took no action against these immigrants why? Because the program wasn't sufficiently funded as the next part says:

primarily due to the lack of resources of ICE field offices to handle the rearrests of these individuals as well as the inability to sustain such case-intensive monitoring services.

So it's a funding question. So who was it who cut funding? Oh right, Conservatives.

So how is this not a problem you caused with your actions?

So it sounds to me like the program works just fine, it just needs to be funded. So thanks for helping me make that case. I appreciate it.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Schumer is saying no to a fucking wall.

You idiot.

if he's saying no, he's an idiot.....

 

[LV426]

You think I was a member of Congress or Senator in 2013?

Cop-out.

You voted for these people; you own their actions.

 

[LV426]

I didn't.

Sure you did. You voted for Conservatives who voted against their own bill. So you voted against your own bill. Why did you do that?

 

[Legion]

What libs aren't telling you about ISAP is that many of them opposed it

Immigrants Fight Restrictions At Home

Run by a division of the Department of Homeland Security, ISAP began in 2004 as an alternative to detention for immigrants who could otherwise be detained for alleged immigration violations. But that program was decried by some lawyers and advocates who claimed it was an alternative form of detention – too often ensnaring people who shouldn’t be detained at all. They said ISAP was overly restrictive and doesn’t effect the cost savings it was designed to – only some 610 New York residents, and 3,973 immigrants nationwide were enrolled when Obama was elected. Though it’s a relatively small number, this group of people appeared to be caught in the gears of a gray area of government policy – one where either being outspoken, or not outspoken enough, could be the wrong move for someone whose immigration status is precarious.

For those already detained for immigration offenses – such as entering the country without permission or overstaying a visa – the way ISAP worked was to grant release on the condition that participants agreed to a set of strict rules, including a 12-hour curfew, three face-to-face meetings per week with a case worker, and unannounced telephone calls and home visits from the authorities.

Each immigrant was also fitted with a GPS (Global Positioning System) monitoring ankle bracelet and was required to install voice recognition technology on their home telephone line, which allowed caseworkers to confirm they were speaking to the ISAP participant during routine phone calls. Only those not subject to mandatory detention, and not deemed a threat to the community or a flight risk, could participate in ISAP.

https://citylimits.org/2008/09/08/immigrants-fight-restrictions-at-home/

 

[LV426]

Why didn't DEMOCRATS enact legislation when they had the chance? They enacted Obamacare without a single Republican vote.

They did! They had the Senate Majority when they took this up. In 2013, Democrats controlled the Senate. The "Gang of 8" came up with a bill that all the Republicans on the "Gang of 8" voted against.

So there goes your shitty argument.

 

[LV426]

Flores isn't law, but ii is binding on the federal government, its agencies, and contractors.

There's nothing in Flores that says you have to separate families when they are apprehended. You guys made the choice to do that in April of this year. Then you spent the last couple days simultaneously defending the practice, while denying it was even happening.

And everyone saw right through it.