• 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!

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,525
Reaction score
19,318
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From CBS News

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts
​

Phoenix -- Detained asylum seekers who have shown they have a credible fear of returning to their country will no longer be able to ask a judge to grant them bond.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr decided Tuesday that asylum seekers who clear a "credible fear" interview and are facing removal don't have the right to be released on bond by an immigration court judge while their cases are pending. The attorney general has the authority to overturn prior rulings made by immigration courts, which fall under the Justice Department.

It's Barr's first immigration-related decision since taking office.

The American Civil Liberties Union said late Tuesday that the plan was unconstitutional and that it planned on suing. It issued a statement calling Barr's decision "the latest attempt by this administration to punish asylum seekers for seeing refuge in the United States. The decision could result in the unlawful detention of thousands of people. The constitution does not allow the government to lock people up without due process."

Typically, asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry would have the right to ask a judge to grant them bond for release. Under the new ruling, they will have to wait in detention until their case is adjudicated.

COMMENT:-

Substituting the term "jail" for the term "detention" is a bit of "click-bait". There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that says that the government HAS to allow persons who are applying for entry into the country to enter the country and roam around freely while their case is being decided, so that means that there is nothing whatsoever that says that the government cannot "restrict the freedoms of those people to the minimum amount required to ensure that they will be present and available for removal should their application be rejected".

On the other hand, locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far. After all, the US didn't lock German military personnel who had actually killed Americans up in cells if they were captured, so the MAXIMUM level of security should be no more than the equivalent to a WWII POW camp AND the same levels of facilities/services should be provided to people who are, at least in appearance, attempting to enter the United States of America under the provisions of the laws of the United States of America.

At least that's how it appears to me - YMMV.
​
 
Do we even have the facilities to age all these people awaiting their day in court?

Or is this just the eventual excuse for not letting them in in the first place?
 
Deplorable. First of all, it is perfectly legal for nonresidents to cross the border to seek asylum. Second, this is as close to concentration camps as we've come yet since the Japanese American internment camps.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts
​

Phoenix -- Detained asylum seekers who have shown they have a credible fear of returning to their country will no longer be able to ask a judge to grant them bond.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr decided Tuesday that asylum seekers who clear a "credible fear" interview and are facing removal don't have the right to be released on bond by an immigration court judge while their cases are pending. The attorney general has the authority to overturn prior rulings made by immigration courts, which fall under the Justice Department.

It's Barr's first immigration-related decision since taking office.

The American Civil Liberties Union said late Tuesday that the plan was unconstitutional and that it planned on suing. It issued a statement calling Barr's decision "the latest attempt by this administration to punish asylum seekers for seeing refuge in the United States. The decision could result in the unlawful detention of thousands of people. The constitution does not allow the government to lock people up without due process."

Typically, asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry would have the right to ask a judge to grant them bond for release. Under the new ruling, they will have to wait in detention until their case is adjudicated.
Click to expand...

I like it when the AG follows the law.

COMMENT:-

Substituting the term "jail" for the term "detention" is a bit of "click-bait". There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that says that the government HAS to allow persons who are applying for entry into the country to enter the country and roam around freely while their case is being decided, so that means that there is nothing whatsoever that says that the government cannot "restrict the freedoms of those people to the minimum amount required to ensure that they will be present and available for removal should their application be rejected".​
Click to expand...


And this, in a nutshell, is why the ACLU will fail.

On the other hand, locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far. After all, the US didn't lock German military personnel who had actually killed Americans up in cells if they were captured, so the MAXIMUM level of security should be no more than the equivalent to a WWII POW camp AND the same levels of facilities/services should be provided to people who are, at least in appearance, attempting to enter the United States of America under the provisions of the laws of the United States of America.

At least that's how it appears to me - YMMV.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that in your first paragraph you point out the "click-bait" and then in your second paragraph you employ similar click-bait. Did you do that on purpose?
 
Phys251 said:
Deplorable. First of all, it is perfectly legal for nonresidents to cross the border to seek asylum. Second, this is as close to concentration camps as we've come yet since the Japanese American internment camps.
Click to expand...

and this is the problem and the disagreement isn't it... Dems think its ok to release on the stupid honor system that doesn't work. Repubs don't and are trying to come up with better solutions.

not fixing the problem is the truly deplorable thing.
 
"Jail Indefinitely"?? - and the mainstream media still can't figure out why people don't trust their news coverage.
 
haymarket said:
Do we even have the facilities to age all these people awaiting their day in court?

Or is this just the eventual excuse for not letting them in in the first place?
Click to expand...

well if there are so many we can't house them and congress won't fund facilities, then they will just have to wait.
 
Hypothetical said:
and this is the problem and the disagreement isn't it... Dems think its ok to release on the stupid honor system that doesn't work. Repubs don't and are trying to come up with better solutions.

not fixing the problem is the truly deplorable thing.
Click to expand...

Arbeit macht frei, amirite?
 
Mycroft said:
I like it when the AG follows the law.



And this, in a nutshell, is why the ACLU will fail.



I find it amusing that in your first paragraph you point out the "click-bait" and then in your second paragraph you employ similar click-bait. Did you do that on purpose?
Click to expand...

Obviously you stopped when you hit the cages/cells bit and didn't bother to read the second paragraph where I made a distinction between the "quality" of types of "detention" and indicated that I would be much less opposed (probably to the point of not objecting at all) if the people were NOT "detained in JAIL LIKE conditions similar to those used for persons who had actually been convicted of major crimes".

Did I do that on purpose? Yes I did.

Did you neglect to notice that that is what I did do on purpose? Right now the odds at my house are running 60/40 that you did. (If you want to toss in "on purpose or through stupidity" then the odds get such that you really wouldn't want to bet the rent against it.
 
Phys251 said:
Arbeit macht frei, amirite?
Click to expand...

uhhh, sorry they aren't labor camps or concentration camps, its not our fault they have problems in their home countries and we aren't obligated to just let everyone into our country unless we deem it something we want to do or they have been processed properly.

they are holding facilities to make sure all the legal ramifications get worked out BEFORE they enter.

an analogy with Nazi Germany is... to put it nicely... an uninformed remark at best.

now could we have better facilities? maybe.. talk to congress.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
"Jail Indefinitely"?? - and the mainstream media still can't figure out why people don't trust their news coverage.
Click to expand...

Did you know that "indefinitely" means "without defined limit" and does not necessarily mean "from now until hell freezes over" (although it could mean that as well)?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Obviously you stopped when you hit the cages/cells bit and didn't bother to read the second paragraph where I made a distinction between the "quality" of types of "detention" and indicated that I would be much less opposed (probably to the point of not objecting at all) if the people were NOT "detained in JAIL LIKE conditions similar to those used for persons who had actually been convicted of major crimes".

Did I do that on purpose? Yes I did.

Did you neglect to notice that that is what I did do on purpose? Right now the odds at my house are running 60/40 that you did. (If you want to toss in "on purpose or through stupidity" then the odds get such that you really wouldn't want to bet the rent against it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I disregarded your implication that these detainees would be subjected to cages/cells, since you DON'T know what conditions they face. Because of that, I also disregarded your statement of the conditions you prefer. And that's why I perceived it as your use of click-bait.

But, thank you for your admission. Most people would have deflected.
 
Hypothetical said:
uhhh, sorry they aren't labor camps or concentration camps, its not our fault they have problems in their home countries and we aren't obligated to just let everyone into our country unless we deem it something we want to do or they have been processed properly.

they are holding facilities to make sure all the legal ramifications get worked out BEFORE they enter.

an analogy with Nazi Germany is... to put it nicely... an uninformed remark at best.

now could we have better facilities? maybe.. talk to congress.
Click to expand...

You already admitted that Barr's plan is a clear path toward concentration camps:

Hypothetical said:
well if there are so many we can't house them and congress won't fund facilities, then they will just have to wait.
Click to expand...
 
Hypothetical said:
uhhh, sorry they aren't labor camps or concentration camps, its not our fault they have problems in their home countries and we aren't obligated to just let everyone into our country unless we deem it something we want to do or they have been processed properly.

they are holding facilities to make sure all the legal ramifications get worked out BEFORE they enter.

an analogy with Nazi Germany is... to put it nicely... an uninformed remark at best.
Click to expand...

Did you know that someone who makes a claim for refugee or asylee status, even though standing on US soil, has NOT been given permission to REMAIN in the United States of America UNTIL AFTER their case has been heard and decided? Did you know that it is NOT contrary to the laws of the United States of America to ENTER the US before having received official permission to do so, but rather that it is only contrary to the laws of the United States of America to REMAIN in the United States of America after you have been denied PERMISSION to REMAIN in the United States of America?

PS - If those "holding facilities" are inside the boundaries of the United States of America, then anyone held in them HAS ENTERED the United States of America (and, in fact, has received "conditional approval to remain in" the United States of America.
 
Phys251 said:
You already admitted that Barr's plan is a clear path toward concentration camps:
Click to expand...

and how does waiting make them concentration camps on par with Nazi Germany?
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that someone who makes a claim for refugee or asylee status, even though standing on US soil, has NOT been given permission to REMAIN in the United States of America UNTIL AFTER their case has been heard and decided? Did you know that it is NOT contrary to the laws of the United States of America to ENTER the US before having received official permission to do so, but rather that it is only contrary to the laws of the United States of America to REMAIN in the United States of America after you have been denied PERMISSION to REMAIN in the United States of America?

PS - If those "holding facilities" are inside the boundaries of the United States of America, then anyone held in them HAS ENTERED the United States of America (and, in fact, has received "conditional approval to remain in" the United States of America.
Click to expand...

makes for a real good loophole , don't you think?

I think we need to change that law, as it is stupid.
 
Hypothetical said:
and how does waiting make them concentration camps on par with Nazi Germany?
Click to expand...

Let's consult the dictionary. The American Heritage dictionary defines a concentration camp as:

A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable.​

Dictionary.com drops the time limit:

A guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc.​

Wikipedia's definition of internment does have it:

Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges[1] or intent to file charges,[2] and thus no trial.​

Whichever definition you go with, Barr's plan is alarmingly close to any of them.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts
​

Phoenix -- Detained asylum seekers who have shown they have a credible fear of returning to their country will no longer be able to ask a judge to grant them bond.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr decided Tuesday that asylum seekers who clear a "credible fear" interview and are facing removal don't have the right to be released on bond by an immigration court judge while their cases are pending. The attorney general has the authority to overturn prior rulings made by immigration courts, which fall under the Justice Department.

It's Barr's first immigration-related decision since taking office.

The American Civil Liberties Union said late Tuesday that the plan was unconstitutional and that it planned on suing. It issued a statement calling Barr's decision "the latest attempt by this administration to punish asylum seekers for seeing refuge in the United States. The decision could result in the unlawful detention of thousands of people. The constitution does not allow the government to lock people up without due process."

Typically, asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry would have the right to ask a judge to grant them bond for release. Under the new ruling, they will have to wait in detention until their case is adjudicated.

COMMENT:-

Substituting the term "jail" for the term "detention" is a bit of "click-bait". There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that says that the government HAS to allow persons who are applying for entry into the country to enter the country and roam around freely while their case is being decided, so that means that there is nothing whatsoever that says that the government cannot "restrict the freedoms of those people to the minimum amount required to ensure that they will be present and available for removal should their application be rejected".

On the other hand, locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far. After all, the US didn't lock German military personnel who had actually killed Americans up in cells if they were captured, so the MAXIMUM level of security should be no more than the equivalent to a WWII POW camp AND the same levels of facilities/services should be provided to people who are, at least in appearance, attempting to enter the United States of America under the provisions of the laws of the United States of America.

At least that's how it appears to me - YMMV.
​
Click to expand...
What's the alternative? Release them into the community with a promise to return for their hearing? How well has that worked in the past? Didn't Dems drastically reduce the funding to build additional facilities (not JAILS); reducing the number of detainees that can be held? Maybe the idea of releasing them in sanctuary cities ain't so bad after all.
 
Hypothetical said:
well if there are so many we can't house them and congress won't fund facilities, then they will just have to wait.
Click to expand...

I suspect that is the flimsy Halloween mask Barr is wearing all along.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that "indefinitely" means "without defined limit" and does not necessarily mean "from now until hell freezes over" (although it could mean that as well)?
Click to expand...
The usual connotation of "indefinitely" is to denote an unlimited amount of time or when the realm of possibility includes that possibility. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a definition that doesn't contain the word "unlimited" in the first line or two.

We don't casually throw the word around. They don't tell us at Chili's that we'll be waiting for a table "indefinitely".

The word was obviously put in the headline because it evokes a negative connotationon.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that someone who makes a claim for refugee or asylee status, even though standing on US soil, has NOT been given permission to REMAIN in the United States of America UNTIL AFTER their case has been heard and decided? Did you know that it is NOT contrary to the laws of the United States of America to ENTER the US before having received official permission to do so, but rather that it is only contrary to the laws of the United States of America to REMAIN in the United States of America after you have been denied PERMISSION to REMAIN in the United States of America?

PS - If those "holding facilities" are inside the boundaries of the United States of America, then anyone held in them HAS ENTERED the United States of America (and, in fact, has received "conditional approval to remain in" the United States of America.
Click to expand...

can you please cite the section of asylum or immigrant law that says this? I am curious as I have not seen it in my readings.
 
Phys251 said:
Let's consult the dictionary. The American Heritage dictionary defines a concentration camp as:

A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable.​

Dictionary.com drops the time limit:

A guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc.​

Wikipedia's definition of internment does have it:

Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges[1] or intent to file charges,[2] and thus no trial.​

Whichever definition you go with, Barr's plan is alarmingly close to any of them.
Click to expand...

bzzzzt, a holding facility is nowhere near Nazi Germany levels of concentration camps which was the analogy. plus your own definition undermines your argument... they are getting hearings.
 
Hypothetical said:
bzzzzt, a holding facility is nowhere near Nazi Germany levels of concentration camps which was the analogy.
Click to expand...

So now your argument is "we're technically better than the Nazis, therefore we're fine." When you defend concentration camps, do you even hear your own deplorable words??
 
Hypothetical said:
bzzzzt, a holding facility is nowhere near Nazi Germany levels of concentration camps which was the analogy. plus your own definition undermines your argument... they are getting hearings.
Click to expand...

I'm sure these illegals will be fed & have better health care in these so called 'concentration camps ' than they were
used to in their countries of origin! It will be sort of like a vacation for them until they get sent back home where they belong.

It seems America now has an ATTORNEY GENERAL finally looking out for the best interests of its citizens,
npt just on immigration but on all fronts.

'By cutting off the money going back home, and insuring some type of detention until immigration/asylum status is determined,
AG Barr likely just shut down the caravan migrations we have witnessed through the last year. It also may slow down some of
the idiocy of the rulings from these pro illegal immigration activist judges and law suits from state AG's.'
 
Phys251 said:
So now your argument is "we're technically better than the Nazis, therefore we're fine." When you defend concentration camps, do you even hear your own deplorable words??
Click to expand...

technically my ass, we aren't gassing people or using them as forced labor. have you never had to stand in line to wait for something? that's all we are doing is making people stand in line to wait for their shot. their choice to come here, so its not up to us to provide them with a 5 star hotel while they do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom