Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
I fixed your quote to highlight the same type of hypcocrisy on the other side that you failed to highlight. Many on the left have cheered Obama's "prosecutorial discretion" and "executive actions", yet declare he must follow the law exactly in this case.

Shockingly, yes, both parties have hypocrites or people who rationalize why a different reaction in a different instance is perfectly justifiable.

True, but the thing is, those leftists aren't here complaining about Obama. On the other hand, we have several posters in this very thread complaining about how Obama doesn't follow the law while demanding that he not follow the law.

So thanks for pointing out that there are hypocrits on both sides of the political spectrum. That was very relevant to the specific issue being discussed and the posts that posted in this thread

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

sangha said:
So thanks for pointing out that there are hypocrits on both sides of the political spectrum. That was very relevant to the specific issue being discussed and the posts that posted in this thread

It is entirely relevant. When your argument against their suggestion is that "they're hypocrites", then inherently that suggests that the argument of liberals suggesting he must "follow the law" in this case is ALSO invalid because they're also hypocrites.

You established the internal logic of your argument by attempting to disqualify a suggestion based on that suggestion being hypocritical in a general sense based on other things said by that persons ideological side....as such, pointing out that your own suggestions are hypocritical in a general sense based on other things said by people on your ideological side shows that your argument, under your internal logic, is disqualified.

Either the suggestion from "the right" that Obama "ignore", or take a different interpritation, of the law is a legitimate point and so is the suggestion from "the left" that he must follow the law.....OR....the suggestion from "the right" that he ignore the law is hypocritical and thus invalid, and so is the suggestion from "the left" that he must follow the law.

29A · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
There is no indication or classification of these children as "Child trafficing victims’".

What law do you think should apply?

(2) Coercion
The term “coercion” means—

(A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person;

(B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or

(C) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
U.S.C. Title 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE

Coercion involves threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint of, any person; any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to preform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
DHS: How Victims are Trafficked

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
"explore reuniting those children with family members. "

We should definitely look to reunite these children with their family members, specifically those not in this country.

The law specifically forbids that.

There is no indication or classification of these children as "Child trafficing victims’".

Indeed, the entire “subsection B” that Sanga keeps talking about is stated as thus:

”Assistance for trafficking victims”

These are not trafficking victims. The problem here is that Sangha is desperately attempting to misrepresent these things expecting that people actually can’t do some research. The 2008 reauthorization he keeps pointing to is an update to the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which details what exactly trafficking is and thus who would be a “trafficking victim”

Wrong. They are considered "trafficking victims".

(Note, the answer is not “any illegal alien child”). Two types of Trafficking is defined in the act:
•
There is no indication, what so ever, that these children fall under this provision. There’s been no indication that they’ve been transported for the purpose of sex.
•
Again, there’s been no indication that these kids were transported to the US through the use of force, fraud, or coercion to do work in some kind of indebted fashion.

(SOURCE)

Those are just two types of trafficking which the law singles out as "severe forms of trafficking in persons"

(8) SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS- The term `severe forms of trafficking in persons' means--
(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or
(B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

Indeed, CBP itself notes the primary requirement for something to be human trafficking: "It occurs when a person is induced by force, fraud or coercion" (SOURCE). There was no force, fraud, or coercion here UNLESS the suggestion is that ANYTIME a child is brought/sent to the U.S. by the parent it's "human trafficking" in which case every illegal immigrant coming across with children (Or here already and sending children) are guilty of human trafficking and should be even more stingnetly sought out and prosectued.

The law is EXPLICITELY for victims of TRAFFICKING, and yet it’s being used here as some kind of cover all for ALL illegal immigrant children. At BEST one can say that this is a judgment call on the part of the administration on how it wants to prosecute these instances…as instances of human trafficking or standard instances of immigration…which takes me back to the highlighted notion of Sangha’s pathetic one sided condemnation of hypocrisy, as the left cheers when Obama makes judgment calls on when/how to not enforce the law but then acts as if he MUST enforce the law in a specific way on another judgment call situation.

When children are sent by their parents to cross the border, then there is both force and coercion

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
It is entirely relevant. When your argument against their suggestion is that "they're hypocrites", then inherently that suggests that the argument of liberals suggesting he must "follow the law" in this case is ALSO invalid because they're also hypocrites.

My pointing out their hypocrisy is not an argument. It is an observation

My argument is based on the law which I have linked to several times.

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

29A said:
What law do you think should apply?

Not an expert on immigration laws so can't spout them verbotem off the hip. I was responding to an affirmative claim that they would fall under a specific law. Care to address my argument, or just going to try to divert and act as if that somehow counters what I stated?

Texmex · Jul 9, 2014

Misterveritis said:
Mexico has become an enemy country. WE need to prevent Americans from visiting, from spending money in Mexico, and from doing any further business with Mexico.

We need to give them one, and only one warning, then mass military forces on the border and invade. Push the Mexicans south and create a new, shorter, straight border.

I sure hope the rest of the crazy right-wing adopts this policy. It is hard to believe that a sane person wrote this posting, but I guess it takes all kinds.

rocket88 · Jul 9, 2014

clownboy said:
Every service they consume, every dollar they make, while they are here illegally.

It's not exactly that simple. As I understand, in 2008, Congress passed a law that meant people from Central America were treated differently than those from Mexico. Basically there's a decent possibility that some kids coming now from Central America may have a legit asylum claim. If they have a legit asylum claim, we can't legally just turn them back around. That's a US law.

They should get a day in court. Unfortunately, there are not enough judges to do it that fast. It's a complete system breakdown. It seems very simple in black and white, but as is usually true, it's not that simple.

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

sangha said:
Wrong. They are considered "trafficking victims".

Well, it's cute that you claim that but can you articulate exactly how they're "trafficking victims"?

When children are sent by their parents to cross the border, then there is both force and coercion

Oh, I thought this would be your desperate attempt to claim this both highlighting your desire to avoid debating this in an intellectually honest way, your desperate attempt to be dishonest and misrepresentative, and your disdain for actually engaging with anyone who disagrees with you as evidenced by you not bothering to actually review my sources.

These terms include any situation where an individual is forced to do something against their will, or where they are tricked into doing something by someone who is lying to them or suppressing the truth

There's no indication these children crossed the border against their will, nor any indication that the parent tricked them by "lying" or "supressing the truth". There was no force nor coercion here as it relates to the law. Do you have some evidence as to where the children were made to cross against their will or via "lying" or "supression of the truth"?

The ONLY possible argument you could claim is that because there was the potential for violence in their homeland, that indicates "coercion" to send them away from it. Then again, using your logic, every illegal alien that enters this country due to "violence" and brings thier child along is "forcing" and "coercing" them to come along. In which case...if you want to go that route, fine; we can begin to round up all these felony offenders wherever we can find them in this country.

rocket88 · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
It is entirely relevant. When your argument against their suggestion is that "they're hypocrites", then inherently that suggests that the argument of liberals suggesting he must "follow the law" in this case is ALSO invalid because they're also hypocrites.

You established the internal logic of your argument by attempting to disqualify a suggestion based on that suggestion being hypocritical in a general sense based on other things said by that persons ideological side....as such, pointing out that your own suggestions are hypocritical in a general sense based on other things said by people on your ideological side shows that your argument, under your internal logic, is disqualified.

Either the suggestion from "the right" that Obama "ignore", or take a different interpritation, of the law is a legitimate point and so is the suggestion from "the left" that he must follow the law.....OR....the suggestion from "the right" that he ignore the law is hypocritical and thus invalid, and so is the suggestion from "the left" that he must follow the law.

Yeah, but who keeps going on about how he needs to follow the law? Should he only follow the laws that you want him to follow?

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

sangha said:
My pointing out their hypocrisy is not an argument. It is an observation

Well, since you're lecturing me on topicness I'm going to assume your "observation" was topical, and thus it was "observing" the quality or legitimacy or what ever you want to wiggle around and say of the argument being made....which is the same as what I was doing.

My argument is based on the law which I have linked to several times.

And which you've repeatedly ignored applies to TRAFFICKING VICTIMS, of which these children to no qualify as there was no force or coercion that caused them to enter this country, unless ones argument is that ANYTIME a child is brought into this country they are a trafficking victim.

Texmex · Jul 9, 2014

Kobie said:
If I didn't know any better, I'd say their default position is "anything Obama does is automatically bad." But that can't be it.

If the current administration immediately sealed off the border and began deporting these children, the same conservatives who are complaining now would be bitching about Obama's strong arm tactics and how much he hates these poor children.

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

rocket88 said:
Yeah, but who keeps going on about how he needs to follow the law? Should he only follow the laws that you want him to follow?

Did you miss the start of this back and forth. This was already acknowledged. The question of "should he only follow the laws that you want him to follow" could be asked of both sides. For example, IN THIS THREAD, we have people on the left going on about how he needs to follow the law. Thus my point.

29A · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
Not an expert on immigration laws so can't spout them verbotem off the hip. I was responding to an affirmative claim that they would fall under a specific law. Care to address my argument, or just going to try to divert and act as if that somehow counters what I stated?

I would not have thought that referencing the US Code for the legal definition of trafficking as a diversion.

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

29A said:
I would not have thought that referencing the US Code for the legal definition of trafficking as a diversion.

My apologies. Your statement and your quoted material did not relate clearly to each other, as one was asking me for something and the other just was a splat of information with no context. Looking it over now that you've actually decided to be clearer...

There is no indication that all these children were being abused, or threatened to be abused, of the legal process.

Note, words and how they're used have meanings. The suggestion is not that they will be subject to an abusive legal process, but rather an abuse of the legal process.

Just because the legal process in their home countries may be problematic does not prove or demonstrate that these children were in any way subject to an abuse OF those legal systems or the threat of such.

Again, if the simple notion of a child "being made" to leave the country because it may be dangerous to stay in that country in a general sense indicates "coercion" leading to illegal trafficking then every illegal immigrant who has brought their children in with them...instead of just sending them....in an effort to escape potential "violence" is engaging in human trafficking as they are "coercing" their children to come with them to avoid danger.

If the notion that a child being made to enter the US because their homeland may not be safe and they or their parents may be subject to "serious harm" if they don't is automatically a "trafficking victim" and "that's the law" and Obama "must follow the law"...then we "must follow the law" as it relates to the plethora of human traffickers throughout this country here illegally who "coerced" their children into coming across the boarder to escape potential "serious harm".

rocket88 · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
Did you miss the start of this back and forth. This was already acknowledged. The question of "should he only follow the laws that you want him to follow" could be asked of both sides. For example, IN THIS THREAD, we have people on the left going on about how he needs to follow the law. Thus my point.

I'd rather see him follow all the laws. I'm not interested in the "you're a hypocrite" accusations flying. If you want to see him follow the law, it should be all of them, not just the ones you like.

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

rocket88 said:
I'd rather see him follow all the laws. I'm not interested in the "you're a hypocrite" accusations flying. If you want to see him follow the law, it should be all of them, not just the ones you like.

Completely understandable. In an instance like this with politics, while I'm not a fan of hypocrisy, I understand why the hypocrisy on both sides exist and am not massively bothered by it. What I am bothered by is either side attempting to shout down the other with cries of "hyporcrisy" on such an issue where both sides are rife with it throughout them. So in a similar vein to your "Follow the law, follow all the laws" notion...mine is basically "be a hypocrite about it, just don't complain about other people being a hypocrite about it".

It's like a fan of a team whose clearly a homer saying someone elses argument is invalid, or "observing" their comment in a negative manner, because they're just a homer.

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
Well, it's cute that you claim that but can you articulate exactly how they're "trafficking victims"?

Oh, I thought this would be your desperate attempt to claim this both highlighting your desire to avoid debating this in an intellectually honest way, your desperate attempt to be dishonest and misrepresentative, and your disdain for actually engaging with anyone who disagrees with you as evidenced by you not bothering to actually review my sources.

There's no indication these children crossed the border against their will, nor any indication that the parent tricked them by "lying" or "supressing the truth". There was no force nor coercion here as it relates to the law. Do you have some evidence as to where the children were made to cross against their will or via "lying" or "supression of the truth"?

The ONLY possible argument you could claim is that because there was the potential for violence in their homeland, that indicates "coercion" to send them away from it. Then again, using your logic, every illegal alien that enters this country due to "violence" and brings thier child along is "forcing" and "coercing" them to come along. In which case...if you want to go that route, fine; we can begin to round up all these felony offenders wherever we can find them in this country.

Your beliefs about what trafficking is are contrary to the law, as I have repeatedly shown.

Again, here is what the law says about handling unaccompanied alien children

U.S.C. Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

(2) Safe and secure placements
Subject to section 279(b)(2) of title 6, an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care. A child shall not be placed in a secure facility absent a determination that the child poses a danger to self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense. The placement of a child in a secure facility shall be reviewed, at a minimum, on a monthly basis, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary, to determine if such placement remains warranted.

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
Well, since you're lecturing me on topicness I'm going to assume your "observation" was topical, and thus it was "observing" the quality or legitimacy or what ever you want to wiggle around and say of the argument being made....which is the same as what I was doing.

And which you've repeatedly ignored applies to TRAFFICKING VICTIMS, of which these children to no qualify as there was no force or coercion that caused them to enter this country, unless ones argument is that ANYTIME a child is brought into this country they are a trafficking victim.

(2) Safe and secure placements
Subject to section 279(b)(2) of title 6, an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care. A child shall not be placed in a secure facility absent a determination that the child poses a danger to self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense. The placement of a child in a secure facility shall be reviewed, at a minimum, on a monthly basis, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary, to determine if such placement remains warranted.

Please note how the text distinguishes between "unaccompanied alien child" and "child trafficking victim"

The law applies to all unaccompanied alien children. The title doesn't change the text

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
Did you miss the start of this back and forth. This was already acknowledged. The question of "should he only follow the laws that you want him to follow" could be asked of both sides. For example, IN THIS THREAD, we have people on the left going on about how he needs to follow the law. Thus my point.

I'm sure you realize that two wrongs don't make a right.

If you want to criticize some leftist for hypocrisy in this thread, then find a post in this thread which contains some.

Good luck

Zyphlin said:
Note, words and how they're used have meanings.

I suggest you do that same. Here's the text

Subject to section 279(b)(2) of title 6, an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight.

Please note that the text refers to "unaccompanied alien child" and not "child victim of trafficking"

Bills frequently include provisions that are not directly related to the issue that is named in its' title. For example, this bill also contains provisions that alter the Violence Against Women Act

jimbo · Jul 9, 2014

29A said:
What law do you think should apply?

How about the laws that say you cannot enter the US without the proper documentation?

Zyphlin · Jul 9, 2014

-editing, giving a second look-

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
That's what it says about unaccompanied alien children as it relates to CHILD TRAFFICKING VICTIMS.

Contrary to your belief or your presentation, a singular piece of a law is not the entirety of it and doesn't exist abscent everything prior to and after the sentence you keep referring to.

No, it does not say "as it related to child trafficking victims"

As I've shown, laws often contain provisions that go beyond the issue that is mentioned in the laws title.

Here is a link to the entire section of the US Code. Please quote where it says that the all of the provisions contained in that section are limited to child trafficking victims

U.S.C. Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

sangha · Jul 9, 2014

Zyphlin said:
That's what it says about unaccompanied alien children as it relates to CHILD TRAFFICKING VICTIMS.

Contrary to your belief or your presentation, a singular piece of a law is not the entirety of it and doesn't exist abscent everything prior to and after the sentence you keep referring to.

The section of the law I linked to in my previous post (the one whose meaning we are debating) states that the definition of "unaccompanied alien child" can be found in " section 279(g) of title 6."

Here is section 279(g) of title 6.
U.S.C. Title 6 - DOMESTIC SECURITY

Here is the text that defines the term "unaccompanied alien child"

(g) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “placement” means the placement of an unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or an alternative to such a facility; and
(2) the term “unaccompanied alien child” means a child who—
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom—
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.

Can you tell me where that definition says that it only applies to children who are the victims of trafficking?

CRUE CAB · Jul 9, 2014

jimbo said:
How about the laws that say you cannot enter the US without the proper documentation?

That's racist.

Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

sangha

Zyphlin

29A

Active member

sangha

sangha

Zyphlin

Texmex

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Zyphlin

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Zyphlin

Texmex

Zyphlin

29A

Active member

Zyphlin

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Zyphlin

sangha

sangha

sangha

jimbo

Zyphlin

sangha

sangha

CRUE CAB