Immigration

[TYLERTECHSAS]

BUMP!

I stated this days ago. Heck, I got banned from another sports site (liberal run) for pointing this truth out. They didn't want to hear it.

"I still think the problem goes back too even this law which I already posted.



"That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.
The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ids-at-border/

[inudesu]

BUMP!

I stated this days ago. Heck, I got banned from another sports site (liberal run) for pointing this truth out. They didn't want to hear it.

"I still think the problem goes back too even this law which I already posted.



"That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.
The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of eitherreleasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ids-at-border/

If this is the problem, then I've highlighted the solution for you.

[Guisslapp]

Sounds like Trump reversed his policy, hopefully.

[Guisslapp]

If this is the problem, then I've highlighted the solution for you.

Yeah, plus I doubt he actually disagrees with the Scalia opinion in Flores.

[Guisslapp]

Very familiar with Flores v. Reno as immigration was the debate topic for high school debate back in 1995-96, when this case was going up on appeal.

I don’t believe you believe for a second that the “law” should be changed in this regard. The Supreme Court majority opinion was by Scalia and upheld the constitutionality of the law in question.

However, by its plain language, the law in question, 8 U.S.C.S. 1252(a)(1), provides that an alien detained pending a deportation hearing generally may, in the discretion of the United States Attorney General, be

(1) continued in custody;
(2) released under a bond containing such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe; or
(3) released on conditional parole.

Notice that this still leaves the treatment in the discretion of the Attorney General, and well, we know Sessions/Trump policy in that regard.

Bump for Ray.

[Champ967]

I stated this days ago. Heck, I got banned from another sports site (liberal run) for pointing this truth out. They didn't want to hear it.

I'm sure that's the reason …

[Guisslapp]

Sounds like Trump reversed his policy, hopefully.

Unfortunately Trump has a record of poorly planned and defective executive orders. This one could suffer a similar fate. The most straight forward thing he could have done is reversed his policy that caused the problem in the first case.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Unfortunately Trump has a record of poorly planned and defective executive orders. This one could suffer a similar fate. The most straight forward thing he could have done is reversed his policy that caused the problem in the first case.

BS. It's Obama who has a record of poorly planned and defective executive orders. They have most all now suffered ending fates.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I'm sure that's the reason …

It's true and it bums me to say it was the Saints.com site.
The exact quote above and how TDS had set in, as usual, with the liberal media and leftist was the issue at hand.

The N.O. site has liberal mods/ADM that even are part of the arguments and a huge snowflake group of posters that hate the truth and refuse to even think it; much less have it in black and white for them to read. I couldn't even post the pics like above showing Obama era handling and cages etc..and they would lose it. I love the town but my gosh it is liberal.

[Guisslapp]

BS. It's Obama who has a record of poorly planned and defective executive orders. They have most all now suffered ending fates.

Maybe you forgot Muslim bans that failed for being unconstitutional.

Just read this one and I don’t think it is going to work either. I don’t think the courts will let him detain children indefinitely.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Maybe you forgot Muslim bans that failed for being unconstitutional.

Just read this one and I don’t think it is going to work either. I don’t think the courts will let him detain children indefinitely.

Those failed because super liberal Fed. District 9 (west coast) ruled on them

[Guisslapp]

Those failed because super liberal Fed. District 9 (west coast) ruled on them

Well, that is why you have to think at least two steps down the road. If you want an executive order to stand, you have to draft it to stand in the jurisdictions that might review its constitutionality.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

BS. It's Obama who has a record of poorly planned and defective executive orders. They have most all now suffered ending fates.

Well, that is why you have to think at least two steps down the road. If you want an executive order to stand, you have to draft it to stand in the jurisdictions that might review its constitutionality.

No Trump was trying to stop the insanity of plane loads of radical muslims coming into the country as quick as he could unlike Obama/Hillary/Pelosi etc that wanted as many as possible in the USA to commit terrorist acts.

Here Trump fixes decades of issues that other Presidents didn't have the balls to do and instead just let all flood in. And yes reversing Bill Clinton's screw-up in 1997.

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STOP SEPARATIONS...

[DawgyNWindow]

Maybe you forgot Muslim bans that failed for being unconstitutional.

Just read this one and I don’t think it is going to work either. I don’t think the courts will let him detain children indefinitely.

I wasn't aware there was a Muslim ban. Last I heard, the Supreme Court allowed the ban you are describing as a Muslim ban to stand pending further review (and it was only for 120 days anyway...and only impacted 12.5% of the entire Muslim population).

Calling it something doesn't make it so.

Not sure I read anything about detaining children indefinitely, either. These straw men are getting really beat up here lately.

[Guisslapp]

I wasn't aware there was a Muslim ban. Last I heard, the Supreme Court allowed the ban you are describing as a Muslim ban to stand pending further review (and it was only for 120 days anyway...and only impacted 12.5% of the entire Muslim population).

Calling it something doesn't make it so.

Not sure I read anything about detaining children indefinitely, either. These straw men are getting really beat up here lately.

Flores says you can’t detain children for longer than 20 days. If you detain them with their parents, it takes longer than 20 days to adjudicate the parents in the criminal proceeding. Obama already ran into the problem in 2014 and that is why they used their discretion not to criminally prosecute the parents with kids for misdemeanors and instead divert them to civil deportation proceedings.