• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Girl dies after being detained by U.S. Border Patrol-Washington Post

Pursuing a Golden Ticket - & the odds are very much against them

Buzz62 said:
Here's an interesting selection of silliness...

Being angry with the INS officers doesn't either. The bottom line is, this 'father'...for lack of a more printable term...dragged his little girl to her death. And you appear to be blaming the US border authorities? :roll:

LEGALLY! They came here...LEGALLY!
Click to expand...

They have a right to apply for asylum - & to do that, they have to physically be in the US. & there's also a time limit - 6 months from entry into the US? a year? That part is reasonable. Crossing the border @ 10:00pm or so, when the BP outpost is closed, is likely a bad idea. They were taken into detention - 4 BP personnel for 163 would-be asylees. So it was more of a cooperative venture on the part of the asylees.

Yah, they have a right to apply for asylum. Asylum as it's set up - with a long vigorous vetting process, lots of interviews, reviews of medical, school, police, employment records, political ties, checking references & family ties & on & on - I think of it as more of an exclusionary process than anything else. People with major crimes in their backgrounds, for instance, are rejected almost automatically. The same if they're wanted on capital crime charges in their home country. & so on. Very few people are granted asylum, & that's usually women with dependent children, I believe. A single man - with child or without - isn't likely to make the cut.

& the Trump administration is urging further reductions in the granting of asylum - & also of refugee status, which is a separate category, & has its own rules.
 
Re: Pursuing a Golden Ticket - & the odds are very much against them

southwest88 said:
They have a right to apply for asylum - & to do that, they have to physically be in the US. & there's also a time limit - 6 months from entry into the US? a year? That part is reasonable. Crossing the border @ 10:00pm or so, when the BP outpost is closed, is likely a bad idea. They were taken into detention - 4 BP personnel for 163 would-be asylees. So it was more of a cooperative venture on the part of the asylees.

Yah, they have a right to apply for asylum. Asylum as it's set up - with a long vigorous vetting process, lots of interviews, reviews of medical, school, police, employment records, political ties, checking references & family ties & on & on - I think of it as more of an exclusionary process than anything else. People with major crimes in their backgrounds, for instance, are rejected almost automatically. The same if they're wanted on capital crime charges in their home country. & so on. Very few people are granted asylum, & that's usually women with dependent children, I believe. A single man - with child or without - isn't likely to make the cut.

& the Trump administration is urging further reductions in the granting of asylum - & also of refugee status, which is a separate category, & has its own rules.
Click to expand...

CORRECTION: They have the right to apply for asylum in the first nation which can grant it. That was Mexico. It was offered. They refused. End of story.
 
tres borrachos said:
Are they doing (and releasing) an autopsy? I hadn't heard that but they should.

Some other posters claim BP didn't treat her because the group was too large. Are you saying they did treat her, and those other posters are wrong?
Click to expand...
They are doing an autopsy but the results will likely take a while. The girl died in El Paso. In Texas if you die within 24 hours of admission to a hospital it triggers an automatic autopsy also dying under suspicious conditions triggers an autopsy. Dying without a history of serious illness can trigger an autopsy. The ME's office would have been called and the ME would choose to not release the body until an autopsy was preformed. I believe autopsy required by the State are release to the public when the results are finished.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, I've lived in desert areas. And?

Have you ever lived in an area that is dangerous for your children and you want to give them a better life? My ancestors did. That's why they came to the USA, in spite of the risks of traveling here.
Click to expand...
So did mine. However they emigrated to the USA legally. I suspect that yours did as well.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
tres borrachos said:
You mean they disagree with me that the father feels guilt?

Okay, her father risked her life. And? She's still dead. Being angry at her father doesn't help her.
Click to expand...
My post is not about anger. It is about blame. You appear to be blaming the US Border Patrol. I put the blame squarely on the father, who dragged just on of his children on that dangerous trek because the coyotes and probably the libruls in this country spread the word that having a child with you might get you sympathy from the western press in your quest to enter the US illegally.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
What are the requirements of asylum?

Buzz62 said:
CORRECTION: They have the right to apply for asylum in the first nation which can grant it. That was Mexico. It was offered. They refused. End of story.
Click to expand...

Yah, I keep seeing that. Is there some requirement that asylees must accept asylum in the first nation that offers it? Can you cite where the asylum agreement says that?

It's surprising that Mexico offered asylum - their economy has been doing well in the last decade or so - they usually insist that the benefits of their economy & system are for Mexicans first - with very few exceptions.
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

southwest88 said:
Yah, I keep seeing that. Is there some requirement that asylees must accept asylum in the first nation that offers it? Can you cite where the asylum agreement says that?

It's surprising that Mexico offered asylum - their economy has been doing well in the last decade or so - they usually insist that the benefits of their economy & system are for Mexicans first - with very few exceptions.
Click to expand...

They have left the country they are fleeing from, they don't need asylum anymore, especially if they are actually turning it down. It's not a pick and choose. "Oh, I don't want asylum from you, I'm holding out for a better deal." Doesn't work that way.
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

southwest88 said:
Yah, I keep seeing that. Is there some requirement that asylees must accept asylum in the first nation that offers it? Can you cite where the asylum agreement says that?

It's surprising that Mexico offered asylum - their economy has been doing well in the last decade or so - they usually insist that the benefits of their economy & system are for Mexicans first - with very few exceptions.
Click to expand...

Here:
Introduction: International Standards

The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for asylum if:
(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail him/herself of that protection; or
(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement;
provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.
In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an applicant for asylum Member States may take into account Article 27 (1).

It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.1 However, in accordance with the APD, those Member States which apply the concept are not required to examine whether an applicant qualifies as a refugee or for subsidiary protection status, where a country which not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant pursuant to Article 26.2 In other words, the Member State may consider such applications as inadmissible.
Click to expand...
https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

southwest88 said:
Yah, I keep seeing that. Is there some requirement that asylees must accept asylum in the first nation that offers it? Can you cite where the asylum agreement says that?

It's surprising that Mexico offered asylum - their economy has been doing well in the last decade or so - they usually insist that the benefits of their economy & system are for Mexicans first - with very few exceptions.
Click to expand...
Trump twisted Mexico's arm
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

Chuckie needs to get a new leftist talking point....

Look at this jackass politicize this little girl's death. Repugnant!!!
Doesn't he know that the little girl's father praised the very people he condemns?




Chuck Schumer@SenSchumer
A 7-year-old girl should not be dying of dehydration and shock in Customs and Border Protection custody.

Secretary Nielsen and @DHSgov must be held accountable for Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin’s death.

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1073666971907080193
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

What is interesting out of the 160 (estimate) people who turned themselves in to BP, only one developed symptoms. I will wait for the medical report. Just maybe it was not a heat related death.
 
Re: TMK, her father was the only family member present with her in Mexico & NM

holbritter said:
But you just said previously, that they weren't in the desert for days. What physical toll?
Click to expand...

That was from a statement from a lawyer representing the family who was able to converse with the father after the incident. But the agents could not have known any of that. All they knew is that these people had just emerged from a desert where in the past some others like them were not quite as fortunate and one of them was apparently quite ill.
 
Re: BP isn't responsible if she was already in medical danger when they detained her

Mason66 said:
Who did Homeland Security not report it to? The media?

You think there is a law that says Homeland Security has to report things to the media within 24 hours?
Click to expand...

Neither the border patrol or Homeland Security, which oversees border security, reported it to the proper authorities. Whom find out about it until the media reported it.

"Her death was not revealed until the Washington Post reported it Thursday night. Congress’ 2018 spending bill requires CBP to report deaths that occur in its custody to the House and Senate Appropriations committees within 24 hours. That requirement is still in effect.

Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees were not told about the death, according to two sources interviewed by Mother Jones. A House Democratic aide said the committee members learned about the death when it was reported.

Senior House Democrats confirmed later on Friday that they found out about Caal’s death from the Post story. Five members of Congress are asking Department of Homeland Security Acting Inspector General John V. Kelly to investigate the department’s failure to notify Congress of the death, as is required by law."
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

mike2810 said:
What is interesting out of the 160 (estimate) people who turned themselves in to BP, only one developed symptoms. I will wait for the medical report. Just maybe it was not a heat related death.
Click to expand...

Whether it was heat related or not the fact remains someone in their custody who appeared to be seriously ill did not appear to get the kind of prompt medical attention she seemed to need in a timely fashion befitting the serious of her condition.
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

Atomic Kid said:
Whether it was heat related or not the fact remains someone in their custody who appeared to be seriously ill did not appear to get the kind of prompt medical attention she seemed to need in a timely fashion befitting the serious of her condition.
Click to expand...

It seems she received prompt care.
Didn't the father say she was fine?
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

Atomic Kid said:
Whether it was heat related or not the fact remains someone in their custody who appeared to be seriously ill did not appear to get the kind of prompt medical attention she seemed to need in a timely fashion befitting the serious of her condition.
Click to expand...
You cannot save everyone. Its just a very sad fact. :( As soon as she fell ill and the BP was notified she got medical attention from the nearest source of medical attention as quick as that medical attention was available. What would you have done differently given the situation?
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
My post is not about anger. It is about blame. You appear to be blaming the US Border Patrol. I put the blame squarely on the father, who dragged just on of his children on that dangerous trek because the coyotes and probably the libruls in this country spread the word that having a child with you might get you sympathy from the western press in your quest to enter the US illegally.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you can find a post from me saying "I blame the US Border Patrol for her death", go ahead and link it.
 
Re: What are the requirements of asylum?

If this story turns out to be true that the girl died of sepsis shock, it means she was not ok for days. Sepsis has nothing to do with keeping hydrated.

"Hospital officials who treated a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl who died in U.S. Border Patrol custody said she appears to have died from sepsis shock, according to the most detailed timeline of her death released by the Department of Homeland Security."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-sepsis-shock-hospital-officials-said-n948666

Makes sense it may have been an infection. Temps are not that extreme (hot) this time of year in the southwest. Yes, people can die of dehydration during the winter. It is the sudden onset of high temp and vomiting that is the key. Especially when no one else in the 160 person group showed any heat related stress issues.
 
ObamacareFail said:
So did mine. However they emigrated to the USA legally. I suspect that yours did as well.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And this girl's father emigrated legally too. Unless you can tell me the law that says you can not leave Guatemala to seek refuge and a better life in the United States. Please do post a link to that law.
 
Bullseye said:
Then why did you say ". . . to bad no one thought to get her medical treatment"?
Click to expand...

I sad "too bad", no "to bad", and she wasn't given medical treatment for 8 hours according to the OP. I think my post was crystal clear.
 
holbritter said:
Your original question and my original answer:

Now, go away with your lies child.
Click to expand...

That is one of the finest twists in logic I have ever had directed at me at DP. Ever.

:bravo:

I've seen some chicanery, but wow, I got to hand it to you, Holbritter, that was almost magician-level truth-bending.

Almost.

See, you included one itsy little comment of yours that makes my entire point for me, which destroys your worthless points and reminds us that yet again, you are stubbornly refusing to answer a simple yes-or-no question that I asked days ago. As you can clearly read in Post #713, you copied this old quote of yours from earlier in the thread:

holbritter said:
If you include she was already severely dehydrated when she arrived, yeah, you are correct.
Click to expand...

And that is where you failed.

The best case scenario for you is that you assumed that my post was incomplete and required addition by you. As if you had anything of value to add to it. And yet, you completely failed to read where I explicitly stated that:

Phys251 said:
Am I correct so far? Not asking if more details need to be included, because obviously they do. I just want to know if my understanding is correct to that point.
Click to expand...

I could not have possibly been clearer that the picture I was painting so far was not complete. I could not have possibly been clearer that I wanted to say more, but I first wanted to do a check up to that point. That was the sole purpose of that post, to make sure that my understanding up to that point was correct. That. Was. It.

And yet you cited that quote of mine anyway and completely misinterpreted it! Did you even read it, Holbritter? Is your reading comprehension truly that bad?

Or, did I simply say something that you didn't like, and you felt the need to insert your utterly useless commentary into it? Which is it?
 
tres borrachos said:
And this girl's father emigrated legally too. Unless you can tell me the law that says you can not leave Guatemala to seek refuge and a better life in the United States. Please do post a link to that law.
Click to expand...
It must be the part about illegally crossing the US border

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Phys251 said:
That is one of the finest twists in logic I have ever had directed at me at DP. Ever.

:bravo:

I've seen some chicanery, but wow, I got to hand it to you, Holbritter, that was almost magician-level truth-bending.

Almost.

See, you included one itsy little comment of yours that makes my entire point for me, which destroys your worthless points and reminds us that yet again, you are stubbornly refusing to answer a simple yes-or-no question that I asked days ago. As you can clearly read in Post #713, you copied this old quote of yours from earlier in the thread:



And that is where you failed.

The best case scenario for you is that you assumed that my post was incomplete and required addition by you. As if you had anything of value to add to it. And yet, you completely failed to read where I explicitly stated that:



I could not have possibly been clearer that the picture I was painting so far was not complete. I could not have possibly been clearer that I wanted to say more, but I first wanted to do a check up to that point. That was the sole purpose of that post, to make sure that my understanding up to that point was correct. That. Was. It.

And yet you cited that quote of mine anyway and completely misinterpreted it! Did you even read it, Holbritter? Is your reading comprehension truly that bad?

Or, did I simply say something that you didn't like, and you felt the need to insert your utterly useless commentary into it? Which is it?
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom