Prove it. I'll understand if you can't.
Prove it. I'll understand if you can't.
Only people elected to legislative bodies can vote on laws. Is there a charity shop near you that could let you have an old Civics or American Government primer to read?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did Trump back down?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Prove it. I'll understand if you can't.
Prove it. I'll understand if you can't.
Only people elected to legislative bodies can vote on laws. Is there a charity shop near you that could let you have an old Civics or American Government primer to read?
How many illegals were participants in the ISAP program?
22,000 people were in the program as of February 2014. Only 44 people from that 22,000 didn't make their court date.
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/
ISAP is light years better than detaining people indefinitely and ripping families apart.
Prove it. I'll understand if you can't.
This is Nazi code for "you got me, and I can't make an argument so I'll just ask inane questions or demand ridiculous proof of nothing rather than defend the merits of my beliefs".
Only people elected to legislative bodies can vote on laws. Is there a charity shop near you that could let you have an old Civics or American Government primer to read?
You voted for the people who voted against their own bill.
So you own that. You don't get to shirk responsibility just because your feelings are threatened.
There's nothing in Flores that says you have to separate families when they are apprehended.
Obama found out that there is something in Flores that prohibits detaining children, and may even prohibit detention of adult "caregivers" with children.
It would be hard to say that the federal role in juvenile justice has been strengthened in the eight years of the Obama presidency. In fact, one could argue that the federal role has been left in a more precarious state.
A federal judge in California ruled that the Obama administration’s detention of children and their mothers who were caught crossing the border illegally is a serious violation of a longstanding court settlement, and that the families should be released as quickly as possible.
Roundly rejecting the administration’s arguments for holding the families, Judge Dolly M. Gee of Federal District Court for the Central District of California found that two detention centers in Texas that the administration opened last summer fail to meet minimum legal requirements of the 1997 settlement for facilities housing children.
Judge Gee also found that migrant children had been held in “widespread deplorable conditions” in Border Patrol stations after they were first caught, and she said the authorities had “wholly failed” to provide the “safe and sanitary” conditions required for children even in temporary cells.
The opinion was a significant legal blow to detention policies ordered by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in response to an influx of children and parents, mostly from Central America, across the border in South Texas last summer. In her 25-page ruling, Judge Gee gave a withering critique of the administration’s positions, declaring them “unpersuasive” and “dubious” and saying officials had ignored “unambiguous” terms of the settlement.
The administration has struggled with a series of setbacks in the federal courts for its immigration policies. Judge Gee’s decision was based on the 18-year-old settlement in a hard-fought class action lawsuit, known as Flores, that has governed the treatment of minors apprehended at the border who are unaccompanied — not with a parent. Judge Gee found that the Flores settlement, which has been carried out with little dispute from the federal authorities, also applies to children caught with their parents.
The judge also found that the family detention centers in Texas were a “material breach” of provisions requiring that minors be placed in facilities that are not secured like prisons and are licensed to take care of children. The detention centers are secure facilities run by private prison contractors. She ruled on a lawsuit that was filed in February by Peter Schey and Carlos Holguin, lawyers at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles. They sued after two months of negotiations between them and the Justice Department produced no accord on how to change the detention centers.
“I think this spells the beginning of the end for the Obama administration’s immigrant family detention policy,” Mr. Schey, the president of the human rights center, said.
Initially, Homeland Security officials said they were detaining the families to send a message to others in Central America to deter them from coming to the United States illegally. In February 2015, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that strategy unconstitutional. Officials stopped invoking deterrence as a factor in deciding whether to release mothers and children as they seek asylum in the United States.
many women and children remained stalled behind bleak walls and fences month after month with no end in sight. Mothers became severely depressed or anxious, and their distress echoed in their children, who became worried and sickly.
Under the Flores settlement, officials were required to try first to release a child to a parent, legal guardian or close relative.
Judge Gee concluded that if the mother was also detained, Homeland Security officials should release her with the child.
The pace of releases picked up, and more than 150 women and children were freed in one week alone.
“This decision confirms that the mass detention of refugee children and their mothers violates U.S. law,” said Elora Mukherjee, a law professor at Columbia University who with her students has represented women at the Texas detention centers. “Prolonging their detention even a single day in light of this decision would be illegal.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/detained-immigrant-children-judge-dolly-gee-ruling.html
You voted for the people who voted against their own bill.
I did?
Says who?
ISAP is light years better than detaining people indefinitely and ripping families apart.
Not according to some involved in immigration law and advocacy, apparently.
Obama found out that there is something
So remember, in all this, Legion was trying to prove that Trump was merely doing what Obama already did.
You failed because in your own post, you talk about unaccompanied children, not children who arrive with their families.
So you argue Obama split families apart and you prove that by posting this: "Judge Gee concluded that if the mother was also detained, Homeland Security officials should release her with the child."
So where is the law that says families are to be separated. You posted the exact opposite of that.
Is your strategy to lose your own argument for yourself? Way to go, Mornhinweig.
Not according to some involved in immigration law and advocacy, apparently.
Well, you are being disingenuous because you're using 14-year old opinions on something.
22,000 people were in the program as of February 2014. Only 44 people from that 22,000 didn't make their court date.
ISAP has not been a well-maintained program, in that many of its participants seem to go unmonitored and many who violate the program’s rules never are 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 takes 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/
Well, you are being disingenuous because you're using 14-year old opinions on something.
Think so?
So remember, in all this, Legion was trying to prove that Trump was merely doing what Obama already did..
I was?
ISAP has not been a well-maintained program, in that many of its participants seem to go unmonitored and many who violate the program’s rules never are 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 takes 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/
So you don't even read what you post, apparently.
Your own post lumps in the absconders with those who "committed other crimes".
What other crimes? Let's see some detail on what those crimes were and how many committed them? And also of those who committed crimes, how many showed up to their court date - because absconders and those who committed ambiguously defined crimes are lumped together. But committing an ambiguously defined crime doesn't mean they didn't show up for their court date.
I'll understand if you can't, because you don't know any of the details and are just regurgitating now because you're out of tactics.
What other crimes? Let's see some detail on what those crimes were and how many committed them. And also of those who committed crimes, how many showed up to their court date.
The source doesn't say what the other crimes were. Is it relevant?
So you keep saying. Have I ever stated that I voted for anyone who "voted against their own bill"?
You're trying to cop-out and there's only two reasons why:
1. You voted for them but don't want to admit it because you know it'll undermine your argument.
or
2. You aren't an American, you're posing as one online in order to sow divisions per your orders at the FSB.
So which is it; are you copping out or are you a troll? Because you can only be one of the two at this point.
The source doesn't say what the other crimes were. Is it relevant?
Yes, it's relevant and why doesn't your source say that? You are the one using the source as support of your argument and you don't even know the facts behind it.
Sloppy, sloppy work. It's like you rushed to do a quick google search of "ISAP bad" and shit out the first link you could find.
But you don't have very high standards (obviously). Nazis generally don't.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Liberals were not demanding that Trump violate the Constitution to detain people indefinitely. Nazis demand that because you're Nazis and detaining people indefinitely is what Nazis do.
Why does Trump have to detain people indefinitely in order to keep families together when that wasn't the practice before, when we had a program that was successful at keeping people together and getting them to make their court date?
Because false choices are what Nazis make.
Because Trump is eliminating catch and release. Call it what it is. Americans want it stopped. It works for democrats but not the country.
Yes, it's relevant .
You may attempt to establish relevance, if you can.
If you can't, I'll understand.