Government photos show detained migrants pleading for help

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes youve provided exact quotes. Just not any two quotes that say the "opposite" thing. Of course, you long ago could have simply put the two quotes next to each other to prove your point and I have noticed that you still have not.

I now understand your problem.

You think that the only "opposite" of (for example) "Spot is a dog." is "Spot is NOT a dog." and also think that "Spot is something other than a dog." is NOT the opposite of "Spot is a dog.".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A fact no one has disputed. YOUR strawmen are not my arguments.

Indeed, my "strawmen" consist of actual statements of what the actual law actually is while your "arguments" consist of statements of what you would like the law to be if the actual law was NOT what the actual law actually is.

LOCK US UP!AND the standards for who can "APPLY" and who is granted assylum are not the same.[/QUOTE]

Where did you see me say otherwise?

How do the criteria for who will be granted refugee/asylee status by "Country A" change the criteria for who can APPLY to "Country A" for refugee/asylee status?

HINT - They don't.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Bed space isn't going to fix the over crowding situation. Trump's policies are the problem.

The nerve of president Trump to want to enforce our immigration law!! Only a Hitler/Nazi/ Really mean guy would do something like that!

Obama never deported anyone because he was a nice guy!! :lamo

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The nerve of president Trump to want to enforce our immigration law!! Only a Hitler/Nazi/ Really mean guy would do something like that!

It is Mr. Trump's policies that are requiring the JAILING (on criminal charges) of the parents, thus MANDATING the separation of parents and children.

Mr. Obama's polices were to DETAIN (for committing a civil offence) the parents, which did NOT mandate the separation of parents and children.

BOTH are "enforcing the same laws", it is how that enforcement is ADMINISTERED that makes the difference.

Obama never deported anyone because he was a nice guy!! :lamo

Under Mr. Obama's policies the priority was given to deporting people who had committed offences IN ADDITION TO simply "being in the United States of America without official permission". Under Mr. Trump's policies the priority is given to deporting the people that it is easiest to catch (and that means those with roots in the community [because you can always find someone who would turn in even their own grandmother for the reward]).

 

[dixon01767]

I now understand your problem.

You think that the only "opposite" of (for example) "Spot is a dog." is "Spot is NOT a dog." and also think that "Spot is something other than a dog." is NOT the opposite of "Spot is a dog.".

Of course, you long ago could have simply put the two quotes next to each other to prove your point and I have noticed that you still have not.

 

[dixon01767]

Indeed, my "strawmen" consist of actual statements of what the actual law actually is while your "arguments" consist of statements of what you would like the law to be if the actual law was NOT what the actual law actually is.

LOCK US UP!AND the standards for who can "APPLY" and who is granted assylum are not the same.

Where did you see me say otherwise?

How do the criteria for who will be granted refugee/asylee status by "Country A" change the criteria for who can APPLY to "Country A" for refugee/asylee status?

HINT - They don't

No one claimed otherwise. Youve kicked the **** out of the strawman. You can let it go now.

 

[dixon01767]

It is Mr. Trump's policies that are requiring the JAILING (on criminal charges) of the parents, thus MANDATING the separation of parents and children.

Legislation calling for jailing of those who violate immigration laws and enter illegally was enacted by Congress.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Legislation calling for jailing of those who violate immigration laws and enter illegally was enacted by Congress.

Indeed legislation which DID call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws was also enacted by Congress.

And legislation which DID NOT call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws was also enacted by Congress.

Under previous President, those laws were ADMINISTERED by giving priority to the ones which DID NOT call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws (and the resultant mandatory separation of families).

Under Mr. Trump, those laws were ADMINISTERED by giving priority to the ones which DID call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws (and the resultant mandatory separation of families).

This is what is known as a "Change In Policy". You might want to take note that neither Mr. Obama nor Ms. Clinton had anything whatsoever to do with changing the policy.

 

[dixon01767]

Legislation calling for jailing of those who violate immigration laws and enter illegally was enacted by Congress.

Indeed legislation which DID call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws was also enacted by Congress.

"Jailing" is only for violations of "CRIMINAL" law.

 

[MTAtech]

Funny that congress seems to be dead set on NOT providing funds for additional bed space when the problem is so obviously over crowding.

I wonder why that is?

The problem is complicate, so it is no wonder that DJT hasn't grasped it. A large part of the problem is that the U.S. was providing money for Central American countries to combat the violent gangs. In his wisdom, Trump cut off that aid, causing more gang activity and violence that these people are fleeing.

Somehow, Obama had this under control and we didn't have a crisis.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

The problem is complicate, so it is no wonder that DJT hasn't grasped it. A large part of the problem is that the U.S. was providing money for Central American countries to combat the violent gangs. In his wisdom, Trump cut off that aid, causing more gang activity and violence that these people are fleeing.

Somehow, Obama had this under control and we didn't have a crisis.

Are you really suggesting that cutting off aid which was never actually aiding anything but was instead being siphoned off by corrupt officials is somehow responsible for the flood of migrants who have been showing up at our border since long before this "aid" was ever "cut off"?

 

[MTAtech]

Are you really suggesting that cutting off aid which was never actually aiding anything but was instead being siphoned off by corrupt officials is somehow responsible for the flood of migrants who have been showing up at our border since long before this "aid" was ever "cut off"?

Then you explain what changed between the Obama Admin and the Trump Admin, that now gave us this humanitarian crisis that we didn't have before.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Then you explain what changed between the Obama Admin and the Trump Admin, that now gave us this humanitarian crisis that we didn't have before.

Simple.

We are actually detaining them now instead of just releasing them into our country knowing full well that 90% will never return for their hearings. When you strip all of the hype and hyperbole away, this is what it comes down to. Prior to Trump, our policy was to simply not enforce the law. Now that the law is actually being enforced, it has highlighted how truly broken the system is. Instead of doing something legislatively to fix the problem, Democrats in congress are advocating for going back to the policy of not enforcing the law.

When you strip away all of the B.S., this is EXACTLY what is happening.

 

[American]

Well, if that is the case, and I don't doubt you for a moment, it appears that you haven't quite internalized what you "know".



An "intentional homicide rate" of 19.26/100,000 (Mexico's) is "slightly" more than a "few" more than an "intentional homicide rate" of 5.35/100,000 (the US's).

Indeed Mexico (13.2/100,000) has a lower rate of reported rape than the US (27.3/100,000).



(Mexico combined rape and murder per 100,000) 19.26 + 13.2 = 32.46

(US combined rape and murder per 100,000) 5.35 + 27.3 = 32.65

Mexico has the slight edge however, the statistics on rape are MUCH more susceptible to "reporting rate" (which means that the victim reported the crime) than are the statistics on murder (where there is no requirement that the victim report the crime).

The percentage survival rates for rapes that do not include murders closely approximates 100%.

The percentage survival rates for murders (regardless of whether they involve rapes) closely approximates 0.00%.

That means that you have a better chance of being alive in the US than you have in Mexico REGARDLESS of whether you are male or female.

As before, the judgment on whether a specific country is a "safe country" for a specific person depends on that person's own judgment.

However, it's always fun bantering with people who believe that the only way to discuss what the law actually is is to pretend that the law is whatever they think it should be.

Doubtful that the illegal aliens have read the reports or know this info. We know they are trucked to the US purposely. Its been on the news. There is no attempt to stop in Mexico.

Sent from Hillary's private email server.

 

[Godric1970]

the refugee Crisis facing America is a problem of there own making constantly interfering and destabilising Central and southern American countries for decades ... this is the blow back when are you going to understand this ?? leave these countries and people alone and within a decade the tsunami of migrants will become a trickle

 

[marke]

From Associated Press

Government photos show detained migrants pleading for help
​

HOUSTON (AP) — In one photo, one of 88 men in a cell meant for 41 presses a piece of cardboard against the window, with the word "help." In another, a man lowers his head and clasps his hands as if in prayer. And in a third, a woman wearing a surgical mask presses both of her hands against the glass.

The images were released Tuesday by U.S. government inspectors who visited facilities in South Texas where migrant adults and children who crossed the nearby border with Mexico are processed and detained.

As public outrage grows over the conditions in which thousands of people — some no more than a few months old — are being held by the U.S. government, the report offered new cause for alarm. It quotes one senior government manager as calling the situation "a ticking time bomb."

"Specifically, when detainees observed us, they banged on the cell windows, shouted, pressed notes to the window with their time in custody, and gestured to evidence of their time in custody," the report says. BuzzFeed first reported on a draft version of the report, which blurs most faces in the photos.

COMMENT:-

If you don't like the way that that left-wing, loony, liberal, socialist, pinko, commie, so-called "Associated Press" has distorted the true facts, then you can always read the true facts HERE.

Just take a look at the fantastic conditions that those guests of the US government are being hosted in. Then compare them with the horrendous conditions in Obama's Concentration Camps and you can see what a vast improvement Mr. Trump has made in the living conditions of those illegal immigrants who want to destroy America and American society.

[NOTE - The above comment rates 3 "Apple Crates" on the "Snark Scale".]
​

When are our lawmakers going to shut up, get off their partisan butts and try to help poor immigrants being caught in the political war crushing them at the border? The situation at the border has long passed the crisis stage.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Jailing" is only for violations of "CRIMINAL" law.

Did your lips get tired before you got to the

And legislation which DID NOT call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws was also enacted by Congress.

Under previous President, those laws were ADMINISTERED by giving priority to the ones which DID NOT call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws (and the resultant mandatory separation of families).

Under Mr. Trump, those laws were ADMINISTERED by giving priority to the ones which DID call for the laying of CRIMINAL charges against those who violate immigration laws (and the resultant mandatory separation of families).

This is what is known as a "Change In Policy". You might want to take note that neither Mr. Obama nor Ms. Clinton had anything whatsoever to do with changing the policy.
​

bits?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Simple.

We are actually detaining them now instead of just releasing them into our country knowing full well that 90% will never return for their hearings. When you strip all of the hype and hyperbole away, this is what it comes down to. Prior to Trump, our policy was to simply not enforce the law. Now that the law is actually being enforced, it has highlighted how truly broken the system is. Instead of doing something legislatively to fix the problem, Democrats in congress are advocating for going back to the policy of not enforcing the law.

"How many migrants show up for immigration court hearings?"

"Twenty-eight percent of migrants released in the U.S. didn’t show up for their hearings during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2017, according to the latest DOJ records. Of the 149,436 immigrants that were released in the U.S. during that time, 41,384 were no-shows.

Over a five-year period through the end of September 2017, the records show 23 percent of undocumented migrants released in the U.S. didn’t show up to legal hearings. Of the 665,930 immigrants who were released,151,492 were no-shows."

When you -strip away all of- add in the B.S., -this- your post is EXACTLY what -is happening- you get.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Doubtful that the illegal aliens have read the reports or know this info.

They may well not know the EXACT details, but they do know that Mexico is NOT safe. "5 Mexican States Get US 'Do Not Travel' Warning"

We know they are trucked to the US purposely.

Well, that's what they are paying for, isn't it?

Its been on the news.

So has a lot of stuff - much of it described by the people who don't want to hear it as "Fake News".

There is no attempt to stop in Mexico.

It may come as a surprise to you, but "the Mexican government" is NOT a division of the government of the United States of America. As such it is under absolutely no legal obligation to obstruct persons who are seeking to apply for refugee/asylee status in a country other than Mexico from travelling through Mexico. In fact, it might well have a legal obligation, a moral obligation, and an ethical obligation to actually assist those people in their efforts.

What I cannot quite understand is why Mr. Trump is making such a big fuss out of this whole issue.

1. The United States of America IS obligated (by both American and international law) to allow anyone who reaches it to APPLY for refugee/asylee status.

2. Both international and American law concur that it is SOLELY American law that governs whether any APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status will be ACCEPTED by the US government.

3. American law provides that the President of the United States of America has the sole and unfettered right to determine how many visas will be granted so that people can be admitted to the United States of America as permanent residents after making an APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status.

4. The government of the United States of America has the right (under American law) to peremptorily REJECT any applications for visas that are in excess of the allowed number.

5. Mr. Trump has the legal authority to set the number of refugee/asylee applications which will be ACCEPTED at any number he feels like and that number could be as low as 1.

6. The cost of rubber stamps that say

APPLICATION DENIED - Does not meet admission criteria - - QUOTA FILLED -​

is minimal (and certainly much cheaper than actually holding hearings and stuff like that).

7. Every US Customs and Border Protection officer could be designated as a "Pro Tem Auxiliary Associate Immigration Court Deputy Judge" and given the authority to use that rubber stamp once a real Immigration Court Judge has satisfied themselves that the immigration quota had actually been filled.

8. For those who are unable to memorize

Gracias por visitar los Estados Unidos de América. Su solicitud ha sido tramitada de acuerdo con el debido proceso. Su solicitud ha sido rechazada. Vuelve al lugar de donde vienes.

Spoiler

Thank you for visiting the United States of America. Your application has been dealt with in accordance with due process. Your application has been rejected. Go back to where you came from.

simple devices with a one phrase voice chip can be built into the handles of the rubber stamps so that that message always at hand in a language that the rejected person will understand.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

BIG SHINY THINGS

I'm really weary of the extreme focus on immigration. Not because I don't like or care about immigrants, quite the opposite, but because it is obvious that the immigration issue is a BIG SHINY THING that Trump is using to "fire up his base" and to distract everyone else from what's happening in dozens of other issues and areas.

Our immigration system is horrible, but it's always been horrible. We can fix it, but we've become a nation that puts profit in the border security business, a built in incentive to seek out even MORE illegal immigration.
Profit is the opposite of what's needed to fix the problem.
Fix that. Remove profit from border security. Fix that and the problem becomes manageable.

But it's a BIG SHINY THING that keeps us on the defensive and keeps our attention away from Trump's rape and pillage of constitutional democratic values. And we need to put it in proper perspective if we expect to beat him in 2020.
My position on immigration is clear and well known so from here on out I won't be wrestling with it very much, because I am sick and tired of Trump's BIG SHINY THING, his new toy, his distractions, his reality TV scripts.
And that's all the Trump stance on immigration is.

It's Stephen Miller's wet dream projected onto ignorant angry people.
We are being conditioned to be giant walking amygdalas thanks to Trump.
Enough. Vote Trump out and vote the Republicans out of the Senate and keep the House, and together we will reform immigration with rational and reasonable ideas together...without the Orange Menace and his hateful cronies.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

"How many migrants show up for immigration court hearings?"

"Twenty-eight percent of migrants released in the U.S. didn’t show up for their hearings during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2017, according to the latest DOJ records. Of the 149,436 immigrants that were released in the U.S. during that time, 41,384 were no-shows.

Over a five-year period through the end of September 2017, the records show 23 percent of undocumented migrants released in the U.S. didn’t show up to legal hearings. Of the 665,930 immigrants who were released,151,492 were no-shows."

When you -strip away all of- add in the B.S., -this- your post is EXACTLY what -is happening- you get.

Or you could just get it straight from the horses mouth...

DHS Secretary Reveals Percentage of Migrants Don't Show Court Hearing

“It depends on demographic, the court, but we see too many cases where people are not showing up,” McAleenan said. “Out of those 7,000 cases, 90 received final orders of removal in absentia, 90 percent.”

“Ninety percent did not show up?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked.

“Correct, that is a recent sample from families crossing the border,” McAleenan responded.

I also notice that you failed to respond to the primary point and instead chose to focus on an ancillary aspect more easily challenged by cherry picked data.

The reason our facilities are so over crowded and the policies which have led to it.

 

[Erod]

The vast majority of Americans believe the border should be handled far more strictly than this. You know, like Mexico and the rest of central and south America do.

The left is losing yet again.

 

[Mr Person]

Simple.

We are actually detaining them now instead of just releasing them into our country knowing full well that 90% will never return for their hearings. When you strip all of the hype and hyperbole away, this is what it comes down to. Prior to Trump, our policy was to simply not enforce the law. Now that the law is actually being enforced, it has highlighted how truly broken the system is. Instead of doing something legislatively to fix the problem, Democrats in congress are advocating for going back to the policy of not enforcing the law.

When you strip away all of the B.S., this is EXACTLY what is happening.

"How many migrants show up for immigration court hearings?"

"Twenty-eight percent of migrants released in the U.S. didn’t show up for their hearings during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2017, according to the latest DOJ records. Of the 149,436 immigrants that were released in the U.S. during that time, 41,384 were no-shows.

Over a five-year period through the end of September 2017, the records show 23 percent of undocumented migrants released in the U.S. didn’t show up to legal hearings. Of the 665,930 immigrants who were released,151,492 were no-shows."

When you -strip away all of- add in the B.S., -this- your post is EXACTLY what -is happening- you get.

He says 90% weren't showing, and apparently you pointing out how dishonest (what else does one call BS made up for a specific partisan purpose?) is you cherrypicking.

Jack: you are lying. Obama actually started out by engaging in the policy you defend, but was ordered by a court not to hold people over the time allowed in the 1997 Flores Settlement, which interestingly was also resulted from Democrat's immigration policy.

And the idea that his shooting down your made-up 90% figure is cherry picking? Seriously? Here's a clue: when person A BS's at person B to score a political point and B disproves it handily, that's not cherry-picking. That goes to the heart of A's credibility. That's why, you know, lawyers in courts like to be able to show that a witness just lied. Lie about one thing, what else are they lying about? Can they even be trusted to tell you what they ate for breakfast?

 

[Mr Person]

And speaking of policy, why does the GOP insist on pursuing the one policy that they know Dems say no to: a stupid ****ing wall that will cost a ton upfront and far more over time, when it isn't needed over all the border?

Why doesn't the GOP to work with the things Democrats support, like fencing where appropriate, just not everywhere, drone surveillance, sensors, manned patrols, etc?

And where's the demand that we massively ramp up penalties and enforcement against employers of illegals like Trump? Do something like use highway funds to try to force national e-verify if they can't do it legislatively (ie, what was done to compel drinking age changes)?


The answer is simple: for all the partisan squawking, neither Trump nor the GOP actually cares all that much. Their donors have employers of illegals in their ranks. Better keep them happy. And so we end up here....

The Dems are for - and indeed passed bills that would grant - funding for a mixed approach to border security. They just don't (1) want a wall across the entire border, and (2) don't want Trump going back to deliberately violating the Flores settlement and, to add some deliberate cruelty, separating children from their parents , in many cases quite possibly permanently.



Here's the simple truth that anyone with their eyes open and their partisan blinders off can see: the GOP wants illegal immigration to continue and they want the Dems saying not to the wall so that they can rile their base. That's why we're here. Not because of some kind of amorphous problem about policies (which no doubt are Dem policies....if they were named), and not because of some made-up 90% BS number.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

He says 90% weren't showing, and apparently you pointing out how dishonest (what else does one call BS made up for a specific partisan purpose?) is you cherrypicking.

Jack: you are lying. Obama actually started out by engaging in the policy you defend, but was ordered by a court not to hold people over the time allowed in the 1997 Flores Settlement, which interestingly was also resulted from Democrat's immigration policy.

And the idea that his shooting down your made-up 90% figure is cherry picking? Seriously? Here's a clue: when person A BS's at person B to score a political point and B disproves it handily, that's not cherry-picking. That goes to the heart of A's credibility. That's why, you know, lawyers in courts like to be able to show that a witness just lied. Lie about one thing, what else are they lying about? Can they even be trusted to tell you what they ate for breakfast?

You should really learn to read SOURCE MATERIAL before flapping your gums.

FROM THE SOURCE THAT YOU JUST USED TO CALL ME A LIAR...

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download

MYTH: Few aliens fail to attend their immigration court proceedings.

FACT: Forty-four percent (44%) of all non-detained removal cases end with an in absentia order of removal due to an alien’s failure to attend a scheduled immigration court hearing.

The article presented as evidence that "only 44% fail to show up for their hearings" cherry picked a stat from the DOJ which states that 44% of "non-detained removal cases" are ruled on in abstentia. An asylum hearing is NOT a "removal case".

Who's a liar, again?