Government photos show detained migrants pleading for help

[Mr Person]

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.

{TU Curmudgeon cites THREE sources ripping Jack's 90% apart)



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?

+

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.



1. I attacked the post. I'm allowed to do that. "You are [gerund]" =/= "you are [corresponding noun]"

2. Your 90% number was complete BS, so now you're trying to change the subject to fighting about one source. He cited three.

3. You completely ignored, oh, all the other words that answered all sorts of other false/misleading/hackish things you said. This is so typical of debate boards. You want to cut out the vast bulk of the points to focus on the one peripheral point that you think you can recover some ground on, and even when you do that you do not play it straight.

4. This thread was never restricted to asylum. The only mentions are (1) in one of two sources the OP cited (the other was 16 pages about conditions without mention of "asylum" and "removal", and that OP focused on holding conditions, (2) TU and Mason66 arguing, (3) you bringing it up to fire back at me. You didn't mention asylum when you cited the 90% figure and you didn't provide a source for the claim that 90% of asylum seekers skip town and...I guess go underground or whatever the idea was.

90% was BS, and I'm not going to bother with the distinction between knowingly saying something false with the intent to deceive and making something up with the intent to make people believe it.

Want a retraction? Well, first, back up your 90% figure.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

But your posts are even more dishonest than that! Who'd a thunk it.

You didn't bother with all of his sources in rebuttal, nor did you read them.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ration-court-hearings/?utm_term=.69fc06a32bf9

Now if you scroll down to the bottom of that article, we see that your 90% figure was stolen from Pence saying something in an interview. It is a many page article rating this as a massive lie ("four pinnochios"); but no doubt it's librul and Bezos owns it so you felt free to not read it. That article says, in part:

A. "The rate of no-shows is far below 90 percent, according to the Department of Justice’s most recent annual figures. When using the Justice Department’s preferred metric, 44 percent of migrants who were not in custody failed to show up for their court proceedings. That’s half the rate Pence claimed."

That alone - you also bizarrely cited a 44% number - destroys your claim and rebuttal. You said 90%. 90% was utterly false. The non-partisan response is "oopsie daisy", not more BS>

2. Mentions that the statistics are fuzzy as anything. One reason (there are fair use rules here): "Because immigration court records are secret, the government’s statistics are difficult to verify. Some of them measure a subset of immigration cases and tell one story. Some numbers crunched by researchers tell another story. The picture can be blurry because an immigration case may involve several hearings over more than one year. We reviewed statistics from the Justice Department (which runs the immigration courts), the Department of Homeland Security (which oversees the border) and independent researchers analyzing court records. The Justice Department reports no-show statistics based on “initial case completions,” a metric that doesn’t count some migrants who show up for court but have their cases postponed or who don’t get a resolution. Completed cases sometimes are reopened and result in different outcomes."

3. You insist this is about asylum but not removal.... the 90% figure is actually just based on a sample of 7,000 cases being fast-tracked through immigration courts, not the much higher total number of immigration cases.

4. The 90% number cited - which, again is wrong - was actually about removal. "Out of those 7,000 cases, 90 [percent] received final orders of removal in absentia, 90 percent."

5. Pence's comments were not about that restricted number set.

6. "From fiscal 2013 through 2017, asylum applicants received deportation orders “in absentia” in 6 percent to 11 percent of cases per year" Need I say more?

7. Noted: because the docket used as source is brand new, effectively the only cases that ended as of April were the ones where someone missed court. This ignored a "huge number" of pending cases where the family appeared but the case was ongoing.

8.


In all removal cases (and remember how dishonest that pivot to asylum was, and the falsity of the number even then), 14% in 2013 grew to 28% in 2017, which is strange given your now that we're locking them all up angle, but whatever....

9. Sept--> May, 81% families attented all court hearings. 85.5% initial, 81% all. Most had 1 scheduled. With legal rep, 99.9% of first and 99% of all. Numbers come from FOIA requests to EOIR.

Given all that, no, I'm not even going to bother reading the other two at this point. You BS'd, and then you lied to try to *get* me. Reading source material indeed....

 

[bongsaway]

Isn't this the objective, cruelty? When trump says a lot of people agree with him, he's right, it seems the GOP has become the party of cruelty. As I've stated before I've never agreed with the agenda of the GOP but I never thought of the party as being evil. Now I do. Evil and cruel and they seem to enjoy it.

 

[ocean515]

But your posts are even more dishonest than that! Who'd a thunk it.


View attachment 67260124

In all removal cases (and remember how dishonest that pivot to asylum was, and the falsity of the number even then), 14% in 2013 grew to 28% in 2017, which is strange given your now that we're locking them all up angle, but whatever....

9. Sept--> May, 81% families attented all court hearings. 85.5% initial, 81% all. Most had 1 scheduled. With legal rep, 99.9% of first and 99% of all. Numbers come from FOIA requests to EOIR.

Given all that, no, I'm not even going to bother reading the other two at this point. You BS'd, and then you lied to try to *get* me. Reading source material indeed....

Your claiming someone was dishonest?

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download





In many case types, almost half the people don't show up.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

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



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.

I am so gratified to find out that the TOTAL number of "illegal immigrants" to the United States of America over the past 12 months has been only 7,000.

I had been under the impression (because of the constant harping about the "illegal immigration crisis" that it was MUCH higher.

Now, if you would only let the media (and Mr. Trump) know that the rate of illegal immigration is approximately 19.2 per day, I am sure that the whole kerfuffle will soon be relegated to the trash heap of discredited alarmist pseudo-crises where it belongs.

PS - Do you know what the term "cherry picking of data" means?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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



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?

Did you note that the failure to appear rate for detained persons is 0.00% (after appeals arising from the fact that the detaining authority simply did not produce the detained person for the hearing have been resolved)?

Did you notice that the actual appearance rate for persons seeking asylum who HAD REPRESENTATION is around 90%?

Did you notice that ANY person who is seeking approval to reside in the United States of America OUTSIDE OF the normal immigration process is, in fact, an "asylum hearing"?

Did you notice the fact that the normal order pronounced when a person's application for asylum is rejected is a "removal order"? (That the person may be given a choice between "voluntary removal" (which carries much less severe consequential effects) and an "involuntary removal" (which carries much more severe consequential effects) is irrelevant.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

View attachment 67260128

In many case types, almost half the people don't show up.

Possibly it would assist you if you would consult someone who has successfully passed Grade 8 math.

What your Table 19 actually shows is that in (and here I'll just use the 2017 figures [because your error is systematic]) 2017 approximately 72.5% (30,010 out of 41,384) of the cases in which removal orders were issued the order was issued because the applicant did not show up for their hearing.

Not only that, but your Table 19 actually shows (again using the 2017 figures) that approximately 20.1% 30.010 out of 149,436) of ALL immigration hearing cases a removal order was issued because the applicant did not show up for their hearing.

In short your "In many case types, almost half the people don't show up." is total BS, and your lack of basic skills in analyzing statistical data glaring.

Now either

1. the Department of Justice simply doesn't understand basic mathematical concepts and is either
   • totally ignorant of the facts,
   • deliberately making false statements, or
   • both a. and b.
2. or you are.

Don't expect me to bet the rent that is is the Department of Justice.

 

[ocean515]

Possibly it would assist you if you would consult someone who has successfully passed Grade 8 math.

What your Table 19 actually shows is that in (and here I'll just use the 2017 figures [because your error is systematic]) 2017 approximately 72.5% (30,010 out of 41,384) of the cases in which removal orders were issued the order was issued because the applicant did not show up for their hearing.

Not only that, but your Table 19 actually shows (again using the 2017 figures) that approximately 20.1% 30.010 out of 149,436) of ALL immigration hearing cases a removal order was issued because the applicant did not show up for their hearing.

In short your "In many case types, almost half the people don't show up." is total BS, and your lack of basic skills in analyzing statistical data glaring.

Now either

1. the Department of Justice simply doesn't understand basic mathematical concepts and is either
   • totally ignorant of the facts,
   • deliberately making false statements, or
   • both a. and b.
2. or you are.

Don't expect me to bet the rent that is is the Department of Justice.

It's awesome to see how someone reacts when their BS has been exposed.

Yes or no, was the in absentia rate in some categories close to 50%?


Typical, all you can do is insult.


I'll move on to someone who can engage in an adult conversation.

 

[American]

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"



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



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



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.

Maybe you should send them your post, clearly they don't know how easy it is.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's awesome to see how someone reacts when their BS has been exposed.

Yes, I quite enjoyed reading you post.

Yes or no, was the in absentia rate in some categories close to 50%?

For FY 2017, it was.

Over the FY 2013-2017 span it was

TOTAL	22.749%
Never Detained	35.425%
Released Cases	36.746%
UAC Cases	45.628%
Asylum Cases	8.222%

That shows that over the five fiscal years, the people who are most likely (45.628%) to have an in absentia order made against them are unaccompanied children and the people who are least likely (8.222%) to have an in absentia order made against them are people seeking aslyee status.

For FY 2017, the removal orders issued in absentia for asylum applicants (which is what the whole "border crisis" is over) was 4,776 out of 43,013 and that is a massive 11.103%.

Typical, all you can do is insult.

I never knew that the definition of "insult" was "reading relevant actual data, then doing elementary mathematics, then producing valid conclusions from the relevant actual data". Thank you for telling me that that is the definition that you learned in school.

I'll move on to someone who can engage in an adult conversation.

Don't forget to include in your criteria "will accept any BS statistics I feel like citing to back up my prejudices".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Maybe you should send them your post, clearly they don't know how easy it is.

All I do is read the law. I presume that Mr. Trump has at least one person on his staff who is capable of doing the same thing. (If he doesn't then the US is really in trouble.)

On the other hand simply rubber stamping all the applications

FOREIGNER
UNACCEPTBLE​

is likely to have a slightly negative PR aspect to it- isn't it?

 

[American]

All I do is read the law. I presume that Mr. Trump has at least one person on his staff who is capable of doing the same thing. (If he doesn't then the US is really in trouble.)

On the other hand simply rubber stamping all the applications

FOREIGNER
UNACCEPTBLE​

is likely to have a slightly negative PR aspect to it- isn't it?

Clearly you don't have an issue when Democrats don't read the law, and very slanted perspective.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Clearly you don't have an issue when Democrats don't read the law, and very slanted perspective.

Clearly you don't quite understand the fact that I am opposed to ANYONE who decides that they are simply going to ignore the law and do whatever they feel like doing.

This thread is about a CURRENT situation which is under the control of the CURRENT administration. Whether in a PREVIOUS situation a PREVIOUS administration did something similar has absolutely no bearing on whether the CURRENT situation is wrong and should be rectified.

Your position is akin to someone who has just slaughtered their entire family saying "I shouldn't be punished because someone else slaughtered their entire family and wasn't punished for doing it.".

My "slant" is that "Wrong is wrong and wrong doesn't suddenly become right just because someone else did something else wrong.".

I realize that this position is not one that finds favour amongst the more vocal "conservatives" (whatever that means) in the US today and also one that is not one that finds favour amongst the more vocal "liberals" (whatever that means) in the US today and to that I say THIS.

PS - Do you know how to elicit gales of raucous laughter from the people in approximately 99.9% of the countries of the world OTHER THAN the United States of America?

Spoiler

Tell them that ANY portion of the Democratic Party in the United States of America is "extreme left-wing".

 

[American]

Clearly you don't quite understand the fact that I am opposed to ANYONE who decides that they are simply going to ignore the law and do whatever they feel like doing.

This thread is about a CURRENT situation which is under the control of the CURRENT administration. Whether in a PREVIOUS situation a PREVIOUS administration did something similar has absolutely no bearing on whether the CURRENT situation is wrong and should be rectified.

Your position is akin to someone who has just slaughtered their entire family saying "I shouldn't be punished because someone else slaughtered their entire family and wasn't punished for doing it.".

My "slant" is that "Wrong is wrong and wrong doesn't suddenly become right just because someone else did something else wrong.".

I realize that this position is not one that finds favour amongst the more vocal "conservatives" (whatever that means) in the US today and also one that is not one that finds favour amongst the more vocal "liberals" (whatever that means) in the US today and to that I say THIS.

PS - Do you know how to elicit gales of raucous laughter from the people in approximately 99.9% of the countries of the world OTHER THAN the United States of America?

Spoiler

Tell them that ANY portion of the Democratic Party in the United States of America is "extreme left-wing".

^^^ Irrelevant

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

^^^ Irrelevant

I quite agree, it is totally irrelevant to you what others actually think or write. The only thing that is relevant to you is what you would have wanted them to think or write if they had thought or written what you wanted them to think or write.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Just more proof of what absolute scumbags right wingers are.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Just more proof of what absolute scumbags right wingers are.

You are hereby fined 10CyberBucks for "Driveby Posting".