Go inside a U.S. migrant youth shelter in a former Walmart — cots, soccer and a mural

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xcathdra

Those laws are not made of rubber.

You can not stretch them into that shape.

nice try

When you enter the country illegally with children you must have documentation the children are actually yours. If not then it qualifies as human trafficking.

70% of the kids in custody from the border are unaccompanied minors.

There is no such thing as an economic refugee, either under US law nor international law.
Not every person crossing the border illegally are seeking asylum.
Finally a large bulk of the illegals are from central america. They are required by laws to seek refuge in the first foreign country they encounter, which would be Mexico.

Secondly since we are now enforcing the laws completely on the southern border parents are required to be able to provide for their children. Since the parents are in the legal system until their status hearing they have no means to provide for their children, against forcing federal and state laws to be enforced when it comes to the welfare of a minor.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Those are the laws Obama partially enforced before he decided open borders were better and stopped enforcing immigration laws all together.

a reply to: Xtrozero

People illegally entering and get caught

I don't think that's the topic at hand, no.

We DO have a legal immigration program, don't you know.

Who cares? The holocaust wasn't illegal under Nazi laws, either. And then they seperated the kids from their mothers in the concentration camps.
We all know what happened next, which brings me to the final solution of your problem: ZyklonB and better plumbing!

You folks don't do it the right way, ask a Kraut in case of doubt?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Got to love the new left wing talking points - invoking the Nazis - again. Although it is interesting to see you think Obama is also a Nazi. At least you can admit than.

If they want Asylum go to a border crossing and declare it.

Dont break the law by illegally entering and dont break the law when you have you kids with you.




Obama administration officials are rushing to explain photos from 2014 that went viral this weekend showing locked-up immigrant children

Favreau said in a series of tweets that he made a "mistake" by not checking the date of the photos before sharing them on Twitter. He explained that the photos were taken in 2014, when the Obama administration faced "an influx of unaccompanied minors who showed up at the border, fleeing violence from Central America."

He added that the pictures had been taken while the government was trying to "move those children out of those shelters as fast as humanly possible and connect them with their parents, most of whom were already in the United States."

Another former Obama official, Cecilia Muñoz, who served as the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, offered a similar explanation to NPR on Tuesday.

"In 2014, we saw an enormous spike compared to what usually happens every year, in the number of kids crossing alone into the United States," she said. "And we didn't have enough shelter facilities, because we had a huge increase, so kids ended up piling up in Border Patrol lock-ups, which are no places for children."

She continued:

"What the Obama administration did, which is what the law requires, is to find shelter facilities for those kids, which were put together by the Department of Health and Human Services. So the goal was to get kids out of the Border Patrol, into proper care by HHS, and then HHS is supposed to release them to the least restrictive setting, and in more than 80% of the cases, that was their parents who were already in the United States."

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Xtrozero

People illegally entering and get caught

I don't think that's the topic at hand, no.

We DO have a legal immigration program, don't you know.

Who cares? The holocaust wasn't illegal under Nazi laws, either. And then they seperated the kids from their mothers in the concentration camps.
We all know what happened next, which brings me to the final solution of your problem: ZyklonB and better plumbing!

You folks don't do it the right way, ask a Kraut in case of doubt?

And godwins law strikes again.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

PS several are guilty of this as well.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Xcathdra

But... but... but... Hillary?

Talking point? It's actual history and I couldn't care less about your efforts to make this a partisan issue. You're talking to the Krautish artist with a dead grandfather, who was the 1st mate on a fcking Nazi cruiser.
Of course you'll get some comments on the methods involved. I might even go into the sexual abuse that followed after he survived the war. It's all part of the ideology, we might come to that point eventually. You don't happen to have any numbers regarding all the different types of abuse in those facilities, right? Who would have thought! And how could you, with no congressional oversight whatsoever.

a reply to: dragonridr

Here's another lable for you: antifa. It's the 'terrorists', who dare to point out fascist terror again...

*sigh*

a reply to: PublicOpinion

No its a talking point and is all over twitter and the left wing media.

As for your personal link I am sorry that occurred however its not occurring here and the 2 arent even comparable with the exception that its a democratic talking point. I brought up Obama because I dont remeber seeing you or others on the left calling them concentration camps when Obama was doing it.

To me that highlights your fake moral outrage solely to play politics by ignoring the past when Obama did it all the while reaching far back into history to invoke the nazi bs again. General rule of thumb for the left - when they invoke Nazis they have no real argument to defend the position they took.

Congressional oversight does exist in their committee structure in both house. Oversight does not allow a member of Congress to just stroll into a facility full of minors.

The proper course is to go to their committee chair or ranking member to raise the issue for oversight and possibly an oversight visit.

and once again this is nothing like Nazi germany so you can stop with that bull# right now.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's not a talking point when things occured the way they did, some would call it history repeating itself.

The lack of congressional oversight is an invitation to abuse, talk about structures all day long if that makes you feel better though. There's a reason you come up with murals for a thread like this, and we both know why.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Your comparison of immigration laws to Nazi concentration camps and Mothers and children being separated and killed is ludicrous. The families in concentration camps did not choose to go there. These would be immigrants know what the law is in this country, so why is it a big shock when it is enforced? ( I do admit that previously not enforcing it was wrong).

If a citizen commits a felony and gets caught he or she is going to be separated from their children when they go to prison. They know that when they commit the felony. Why aren't we whining about the inhumanity of that? If you do not want to be separated from your children don't try to bring them into the US illegally, it is as simple as that. Is that harsh? Maybe, but life isn't all rainbows and butterflies. There are consequences for all of our actions.

a reply to: pointessa

That's reaffirming. Human rights are ludicrous for you as well, I'd reckon?

but life isn't all rainbows and butterflies.

...said Big Brothers little sister and ignored Amnesty International for the sake of her New Life Order. Carry on! You're doing a great job to illustrate my points.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

I don't think that's the topic at hand, no.

Detaining is the topic, and we need to do it in a safe and secure way. We do not know who these people are so you just want to take their word for it and put them all in some kind of camp? Or do we put them in a hotel? We are not talking unlimited funds here so throw me a bone and tell me how do we detain these people in a way you see as best?

a reply to: pointessa

If you do not want to be separated from your children don't try to bring them into the US illegally, it is as simple as that. Is that harsh? Maybe, but life isn't all rainbows and butterflies. There are consequences for all of our actions.

Introduction
Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides as follows:

1.The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause fort heir illegal entry or presence.

www.unhcr.org...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: pointessa

If you do not want to be separated from your children don't try to bring them into the US illegally, it is as simple as that. Is that harsh? Maybe, but life isn't all rainbows and butterflies. There are consequences for all of our actions.

Introduction
Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides as follows:

1.The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause fort heir illegal entry or presence.

www.unhcr.org...

Thats funny the United States was nor a party to this convention it means nothing to US law.

a reply to: dragonridr

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum.

..........................

As at 1 July 2013, there were 145 parties to the Convention, and 146 to the Protocol.[1][4][5] Most recently, the President of Nauru, Marcus Stephen, signed both the Convention and the Protocol on 17 June 2011[6][7] and acceded on 28 June 2011. Madagascar and Saint Kitts and Nevis are parties only to the Convention, while Cape Verde, the United States of America and Venezuela are parties only to the Protocol. Since the US ratified the Protocol in 1968, it undertook a majority of the obligations spelled out in the original 1951 document (Articles 2-34), and Article 1 as amended in the Protocol, as "supreme Law of the Land"

en.wikipedia.org...

Not only is the United States a member of the UN, it ratified the document 1968!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No no they didnt your just wrong. They were however a nember of thr 1968 summit. However the 1951 confrence is irrelevant to us as they were not a member of the summit. Snf specific parts of the 51 agreement were not ratified under US law. Specifically the US definition of refuges. Under US law we use the asylum clause and donnot recognize refugees.

To seek asylum you have to be persecuted by your government on the basis of race ot gender,religion or political beliefs. This is why only about 8 percent of aplicants qualify and most of those are from countries like syria. Last year that was the number one group seeking asylum in the US.

a reply to: dragonridr

You have links for your assertions, because I do. And, when you say I'm wrong, you mean my sources are wrong. So please, linky?

Legal Obligations of the United States Under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention

The United States adheres to Articles 2 through 34 of the Refugee Convention by virtue of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223 (“the Protocol”), to which the United States acceded on November 1, 1968

www.justice.gov...

US: Renewing America’s Commitment to the Refugee Convention
Statement of Bill Frelick to Senate Judiciary Committee on the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 www.hrw.org...

a reply to: Xcathdra



How were the parents here first and the kids left behind alone?

That’s against the law in the US.

Reckless endangerment of a child and child abandonment.

Why give the kids back to them, obama?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

After reading further the kids can be released to family if they have any in the US. If not their is an option for placement in volunteer homes until the legal issues with the parents are resolved.

The requirement for separation of families actually comes from a 1993 Supreme Court ruling(Flores vs Reno), resulting in the requirement to separate family members at the first INS facility they enter. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 moved this requirement into the reorganization of Executive branch agencies (Homeland security / Customs / Border patrol etc etc).

There are 2 categories that essentially are the same thing.
* - unaccompanied minors
* - accompanied minors

Focusing on the accompanied minor portion -
INS (and now their successor agencies) is required to separate children from adult family members if the adult is face federal charges, like illegally entering the country. Since its is prohibited to place minors into detention facilities with adults the kids are required by law to be separated from the adults. Because they cannot release juveniles out onto the street on their own the government is required to provide facilities to house the children and to provide for them while the parents are dealing with thier legal issues.

Flores vs Reno 1993 -

INS Compliance with Policies and Procedures

Flores and INS policy require the INS to segregate non-delinquent juveniles in temporary detention from juvenile offenders while they await appropriate placement. The INS does not interpret Flores as requiring that the segregation be maintained once the non-delinquent juveniles are formally placed in a secure facility, and INS policy does not require it. We believe the segregation of non-delinquent juveniles from juvenile delinquents should be continued as long as the juveniles are in INS custody in order to ensure their well-being. In FY 2000, 34 of 57 secure facilities did not have procedures or facilities to properly segregate non-delinquent from delinquent juveniles. As a result, there may have been as many as 484 potential instances when non-delinquent and delinquent juveniles were housed together.

The Juvenile Protocol Manual requires an INS official to visit with all juveniles in its custody on a weekly basis. At three of the eight districts reviewed, juvenile coordinators were not regularly conducting the required visits. In addition, the INS does not have procedures in place to document the visits when they do occur.

Flores requires the INS to segregate juveniles from adults during detention and transport after arrival at the first INS processing office. INS escort policy requires that juveniles be transported with same-sex escorts. The INS does not always document the detention and transport of juveniles and is thus unable to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. INS escort policy requires that all juveniles be escorted when on commercial aircraft. The INS allowed unescorted juveniles to travel on commercial aircraft. INS restraint policy also prohibits the use of restraints on non-delinquent juveniles in custody or when transported by non-INS officers/agencies. Facilities in four districts used restraints when transporting non-delinquent juveniles.

Flores requires the INS to place juveniles in an appropriate secure juvenile detention facility or a non-secure shelter facility within three to five days of entering into INS custody. In FY 2000, the INS did not meet this requirement for 19 juveniles. For 339 juveniles, INS records were not sufficient to demonstrate that it had met this requirement.

All of the above and the requirements in Flores were integrated into the Homeland Security Act of 2002. A law that was passed by bipartisan support since at the time Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House.

So the next time you hear Democrats lie by claiming this was never a law feel free to educate them.

originally posted by: wheresthebody
Many people have been convinced that being inhumane is an acceptable way to go about their lives.

People are sick.

Well, it's not like the children and parents are being dumped at the border and left to fend for themselves.

THAT would be inhumane. Temporarily housing children and providing them with food, shelter, clothing (I assume), medical care (I assume), and a way to contact their parents while their criminal parents tried to evade both detection by and the written word of the law are being processed by the system is not exactly "being inhumane."

It would seem that your ideological bias has replaced cognitive abilities. There is nothing inhumane about what is happening unless you suckle at the teat of media bias and misrepresentation. Yes, it absolutely sucks that this is going down, but blame the parents who are circumventing the law and bringing their kids along for the ride.

Culpability lies with the source of the problem, not those forced to react to the situation as best as possible. I can't imagine a person who is looking at this situation and thinking, "Wow, this is sure ideal for all involved--what should do this in perpetuity!," but the reality is that this is where we're at, forced by the hand of parents willing to take the known chance of getting caught illegally entering the country.

What, pray tell, would be YOUR solution to the problem?

(If you've already answered that question, my apologies...I haven't read past page one yet)