It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help me find the actual legislation and or policy related to immigrant children

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Southern Guardian

By God, i'd hope we'd offer the same rights to our own citizens before offering it to foreign nationals.

Im separated from my children when im jailed (well, if i were jailed, and had children under 18).


your kids would be givin to someone who can take care of them well before the state or fed would have any right to detain them.

happens everyday and in the past many of these detainees would just be handed over to family on one side or the other.




posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
CNN article from July 2014....

Unintended consequences: 2008 anti-trafficking law contributes to border crisis

Who were the Congressional Leaders back then ?



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
This article explains the situation quite well.


Is the policy of separating families new?

Yes. But it’s building on an existing system, and attention to family separation has brought more awareness to problems with that system that have been going on for some time.

For the past several years, a growing number of people coming into the US without papers have been Central Americans — often families, and often seeking asylum. Asylum seekers and families are both accorded particular protections in US and international law, which make it impossible for the government to simply send them back. Those protections also put strict limits on the length of time, and conditions, in which children can be kept in immigration detention.

When the Obama administration attempted to respond to the “crisis” of families and unaccompanied children crossing the border in summer 2014, it put hundreds of families in immigration detention — a practice that had basically ended several years before. But federal courts stopped the administration from holding families for months without justifying the decision to keep them in detention. So most families ended up getting released while their cases were pending — which immigration hawks have derided as “catch and release.” In some cases, they disappeared into the US rather than showing up for their court dates.

The Trump administration has stepped up detention of asylum seekers (and immigrants, period). But because there are such strict limits on keeping children in immigration detention, it’s had to release most of the families it’s caught. The government’s solution has been to prosecute larger numbers of immigrants for illegal entry — including, in a break from previous administrations, large numbers of asylum seekers. That allows the Trump administration to ship children off to ORR, rather than keeping them in immigration detention.


Vox

It is absolutely Trump and Sessions' zero-tolerance policy that is to blame for the sudden spike in children being put in detention centers and being separated from their parents. But there is a lot more to it... I would read the article in full.

Lots of these people are asylum seekers, who are not breaking any laws but coming here legally to seek asylum. However, Sessions thinks that their claims are bogus and wants to prosecute them anyway. The zero-tolerance policy also affects non-asylum seekers, as well.


Why does Trump say there’s a “Democratic law” requiring families to be separated?

President Trump has responded to criticisms of family separation by claiming that a “Democratic law” requires him to do it, and that if Congress doesn’t like it, they can change the law.

This is not true. There is no law that requires immigrant families to be separated. The decision to charge everyone crossing the border with illegal entry — and the decision to charge asylum seekers in criminal court rather than waiting to see if they qualify for asylum — are both decisions the Trump administration has made.

edit on 18pmMon, 18 Jun 2018 17:14:46 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

I've already explained to you: there's nothing to make the authorities suspect I may be trafficking in children.

At the border, which was also explained to you just a moment ago by Burdman, the game with the cartels is just as much about trafficking sex slaves as drugs.

So "giving the children to their families" requires us proving that the children belong to who is claiming them to begin with. The alternative is making our Immigration Policy a boom for child sex rings.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

The current problem is the result of the Obama Administration circumventing laws that they decided not to fix for political reasons as we can clearly see today.

Congress could have and can now make changes.

But it takes cooperation and logic.

😎



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: howtonhawky

I've already explained to you: there's nothing to make the authorities suspect I may be trafficking in children.

At the border, which was also explained to you just a moment ago by Burdman, the game with the cartels is just as much about trafficking sex slaves as drugs.

So "giving the children to their families" requires us proving that the children belong to who is claiming them to begin with. The alternative is making our Immigration Policy a boom for child sex rings.


Im separated from my children when im jailed (well, if i were jailed, and had children under 18).

i bet that sounds familiar


you are pushing a false narrative with the we do not know them so we gotta cage them

perhaps there a few cases where that is the case but in no way shape or fashion is confirmation of family relations being touted as an issue and even if it is it is false

nothing has changed except the policy to make everyone a criminal who crosses the border



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

I'm not here not hear bud.

With that says there's no law against it as this matter hasn't really been addressed at this level before. Head of the DHS stated this in relation to 'policy' on this matter:



Nothing like a smart-aleck grammar-Nazi with multiple mistakes in his grammar-Nazi post lmao. Two of them (or three depending how one counts them) in your first sentence of 'correction' ahem. See if you can find them. Next up in your humourous 'fail' is probably the same thing that happened to the poster you target: Autocorrect.

As to the topic at hand, I expect there's now pressure on Congress to do something as regards reform. It's their shirked responsibility that exacerbates this in the first place. So, all in all, I'm glad the dishonest deep state MSM puppets have made an issue of this. I can't wait until November.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian




There is no federal law mandating children and parents be separated at the border; a policy resulting in that outcome was enacted in May 2018.


No, but I am pretty sure that there is a law mandating that you do not throw the kids of the criminals in jail with their parents.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

awesome thanks



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: toysforadults

You could start here:



thanks



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   
www.rumormillnews.com...

follow this link for thd lead you are looking for. I posted it before.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I believe it was the Flores agreement.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Asylum is sought at official US border crossings, not by illegally crossing the border between those official US border crossing stations (where they could have legally requested asylum). Once they choose to cross the border illegally, they are no longer asylum seekers, but illegal immigrants like the others who illegally cross the border.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
you are pushing a false narrative with the we do not know them so we gotta cage them

perhaps there a few cases where that is the case but in no way shape or fashion is confirmation of family relations being touted as an issue and even if it is it is false

nothing has changed except the policy to make everyone a criminal who crosses the border

I'm guessing that you've never travelled out of the country and into another one with children in two, have you?

No matter where you go, you have to prove that the children with whom you are traveling are yours, either with birth certificates or other approved documentation.

When you show up illegally along a border known for problems with human trafficking, and you have no approved documentation to show that the children with whom you showed up are actually under your legal guardianship, what would you expect us to do?

I bolded that because that is a question that everyone complaining about this issue is unwilling to answer. The biggest problems are what I just bolded, coupled with the reality that we cannot put children in jail or detainment with adults, regardless as to whether or not they claim to be their parents.

So, what is your solution to both of those problems? That is a sincere question, because we can't just allow unfettered illegal immigration, so we must make arrests.

In my opinion, the key problem concerning the illegal immigrants is the lack of documentation. IF they have that, I agree that the families should be detained together. But if not, there's not much more that we can do differently.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




what would you expect us to do?


follow the law

stop creating unjust laws and actions.

immigration is a states issue

we are governed by the constitution

release the power back to the states and let each deal with them

this what do other countries do is just plain crap when we were givin the rules by the founders but we ignore them

i personally do not give a crap if people are related to kids or not.

IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS past the point of if they have records or if a child says they are in danger then we should act otherwise a person can seek asylum with a thousand kids if they choose.



FREEDOM welcome to america



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

So, no realistic answers, then (because the laws are being followed as we speak).

Okie dokie--my apologies for continuing the discussion.

As an aside, if you don't care if people are a child's legal guardian as they illegally enter a country, then your entire opinion on the matter is now relegated to the garbage pile because you don't appear to have priorities in the right order.

Best regards.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: howtonhawky

So, no realistic answers, then (because the laws are being followed as we speak).

Okie dokie--my apologies for continuing the discussion.

As an aside, if you don't care if people are a child's legal guardian as they illegally enter a country, then your entire opinion on the matter is now relegated to the garbage pile because you don't appear to have priorities in the right order.

Best regards.



Is there some part of the constitution that states in order to seek asylum one has to be related to someone. no

You are following the logic that only creates more confusion.

Again by your logic we should have a law that states a person can not be with another person because you have a mind that tells you everyone is screwing all the kids in the usa.

I live in the real world where if someone does something like that they are punished but the constitution does not allow us to investigate people to see if they are breaking the law.

That is not due process

srry if the constitution shuts down your intent to be like mueller and treat everyone like a criminal.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: SlapMonkey




what would you expect us to do?


follow the law

stop creating unjust laws and actions.

immigration is a states issue

we are governed by the constitution

release the power back to the states and let each deal with them

this what do other countries do is just plain crap when we were givin the rules by the founders but we ignore them

i personally do not give a crap if people are related to kids or not.

IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS past the point of if they have records or if a child says they are in danger then we should act otherwise a person can seek asylum with a thousand kids if they choose.



FREEDOM welcome to america


Immigration is in no way a states issue. If you truly believe that to be true, your departure from reality and how our Republic works makes it impossible to discuss this with you.

In a world where we are fighting child sex slavery, ensuring that children are not being trafficked across our border is critically important.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The federal law establishes the age of 12 as the minimum age of consent, while the age at which there are no restrictions for consensual sexual activities is 18 (sex with someone 12-18 is not illegal per se, but can still be open to prosecution under certain circumstances).
Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the heart of what you seem to be having issue with.

It is not an american immigration issue but rather a third world problem and since they are a country they can do what they want.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Is there some part of the constitution that states in order to seek asylum one has to be related to someone. no

Is there somewhere in anything that I've ever said that alludes to that claim?

No.


Again by your logic we should have a law that states a person can not be with another person because you have a mind that tells you everyone is screwing all the kids in the usa.

Ummmmm...no. In fact, this very claim of yours is a massive leap in logic, not a reference to any sort of logic that I've used thus far.

But, now that I'm amused, please, continue...


I live in the real world where if someone does something like that they are punished but the constitution does not allow us to investigate people to see if they are breaking the law.

That is not due process

Well, actually, that's what probable cause is--it's not proof that someone broke the law, just activity or circumstances that allow the legal investigation of the issue at hand.

You know that the Fourth Amendment, which specifically allows for searches and seizures based on probable cause, is part of the constitution, right?



srry if the constitution shuts down your intent to be like mueller and treat everyone like a criminal.

Well, for one, you're being immature with your ad hominems (a form of attack that is a logical fallacy, btw).

Two, let's just see how the federal government got the official power to control the national borders of the United States (and there are many other websites that explain it, but I'm just citing this one for its succinct way of putting it):

What Authority Does the U.S. Constitution Give the Federal Government Regarding Immigration?

The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. ...

The American Review

So, I mean, the SCOTUS only ruled 142 years ago that "immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility," so you'll have to excuse me if I don't seem surprised that, in your obviously knowledgable capacity on the matter, that you didn't have this figured out yet.

See, the Constitution, as originally written, limited the scope of the federal government, for sure, and it seems that immigration regulation at one time was intended to be a state issue, but 142 years ago, the SCOTUS affirmed that immigration issues absolutely fall under and end with the control of the federal government.

So, the Constitution has done nothing to negate anything that I've ever said thus far--your comment sure is reflecting poorly on your understanding of this "real world" in which you claim to live, though.

 


a reply to: howtonhawky

As for this comment...this means nothing to anything that I've said. W(here)TF are you trying to take this discussion? (Not that it matters, because I won't be coming along for the ride)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join