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.

 

Trump signs executive order to stop family separations at border

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Flores has been argued court and that a 20 day limit was established. Or do you think the admin pulled that number from somewhere the sun don't shine? Or were they just talking out of both sides of their mouth?






edit on 6/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra


Flores has been argued court and that a 20 day limit was established. Or do you think the admin pulled that number from somewhere the sun don't shine? Or were they just talking out of both sides of their mouth?


Not them - you.

The 20 day rule is for minors in detention and has nothing to do with family detention. Family detention is illegal.

As I said try not to confuse the 2 because they arent the same thing.
edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 12:42 AM
link   
This is what Democrats are trying to do -

80% of the minors currently in custody are unaccompanied minors. Secondly when a family illegally crosses the border and the adults are charged the minors become.. wait for it.. unaccompanied minors while the parents are in the legal system.

So you wanna try and take another swing at it or concede the fact Obama and Trump are dealing with the same issues, the same court rulings and the same laws. The difference being Democrats are ignoring the courts order in Flores vs Reno and Flores vs Meese by trying to push family detention. Democrats are pushing this because they know the courts wont allow it at which point the side the Democrats will support will make a motion to release all minors to their family members and demand the court to free the family members in custody to take custody of their children.

Then they will demand they be released RoR with a court date they wont show up for because it is illegal to detain families and by extension Democrats have conned a court into sanctioning open borders and undermining immigration laws including the one law, from 2008, passed by Democrats.

and low and behold the state of New York has sued the Trump administration for its policies dealing with illegal entry and minors and family separation. New York has no standing to sue but they will judge shop and will find a judge who has never read the Constitution to take the case.
edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Family detention is illegal.
You'll have to do better than just state that. Lest you sound like Trump. Is it Flores which prohibits family detention?

As I understand it, Flores originally was interpreted to apply to unaccompanied minors. However, later court decisions modified it to include accompanied minors, and put a time limit on custody (detention).

But Trump solved that problem by removing children from their parents, thereby classifying them as unaccompanied (since they were no longer with their parents). Then he realized it was not working out well to hold babies hostage for his stupid wall. So he "fixed" it (which he had said he couldn't do.


edit on 6/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I did - twice now.

The rulings in Flores vs Reno and Flores vs Meese state it.

Read the case law and requirements.

It is illegal to place Minors in adult detention facilities.



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Surely you can cite the clause(s) which prohibit family detention.

(I did not fail to notice the modification of your position to "adult detention facilities.")

edit on 6/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Surely you can cite the clause(s) which prohibit family detention.


I did twice now in the rulings in Flores vs Reno and Flores vs Meese.

The Court order in both cases was transferred in the 2002 Homeland Security Act to the successors to the INS.
INS requirements under the ruling in Flores vs. Reno

SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS

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.


Also -

Related Processes

The Flores agreement established as INS policy that juveniles would be released without unnecessary delay, consistent with its interests to ensure the juvenile's timely appearance before the INS and the immigration courts and to protect the juvenile's well-being. Juveniles must be released to a sponsor who will accept responsibility for the juvenile. Preferred sponsors included parents, legal guardians, and close adult family members. If a juvenile has a parent in the United States, however, current INS policy requires the parent to be involved in the juvenile's release, regardless of the parent's immigration status. An undocumented parent must report to an INS officer and enter immigration court proceedings before the INS will release the juvenile. If the parent is unwilling to come forward, the juvenile will remain in INS custody, even when another acceptable sponsor is available. The current INS policy if too rigidly adhered to, may impede the INS's ability to ensure the least restrictive custody and most expeditious release of juveniles.

Unaccompanied juveniles in the Juvenile Program are required to go before the immigration courts to present their cases. The court proceedings are the responsibility of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) but are initiated by INS at the outset of the juvenile's custody. For several reasons, few juvenile cases before the immigration courts are completed while the juveniles are still in custody. After juveniles were released from custody, 68 percent failed to appear for their hearings. Legal services available for juveniles in custody are limited, hearings on the merits of cases are frequently postponed until after release of the juveniles, and in two locations hearings for juveniles in shelter care were not scheduled expeditiously.

The law does not provide for legal representation at government expense for alien juveniles. However, EOIR is actively involved in developing sources of pro bono legal aid. The other reasons for delay are, for the most part, the responsibility of EOIR. To the extent that problems in the process affect juveniles in INS custody, the INS and EOIR should follow-up on discussions already begun to find effective mutually agreeable solutions.

The report contains 28 recommendations to address the issues we identified during our review.






posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:05 AM
link   
As I was saying -

VOX - The solution to the crisis of family separation at the US-Mexico border, the Trump administration has decided, is to get rid of a 1997 federal court decision that strictly limits the government’s ability to keep children in immigration detention.


The administration has fingered Flores v. Reno, or the “Flores settlement,” as the reason it is “forced” to separate parents from their children to prosecute them. It claims that because it cannot keep parents and children in immigration detention together, it has no choice but to detain parents in immigration detention (after they’ve been criminally prosecuted for illegal entry) and send the children to the Department of Health and Human Services as “unaccompanied alien children.”

The Flores settlement requires the federal government to do two things: to place children with a close relative or family friend “without unnecessary delay,” rather than keeping them in custody; and to keep immigrant children who are in custody in the “least restrictive conditions” possible.

Republicans in Congress have proposed legislation that would overrule Flores and allow children to be kept with their parents in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody while they are put through criminal prosecution and deportation proceedings — which many migrant families fight by claiming asylum in the US, a process that can stretch out for months or years.

Trump can’t overrule the Flores settlement with the stroke of a pen. But getting rid of the court agreement has been in his administration’s sights for months. While Republicans frame Flores as the obstacle to keeping families together, many of the people outraged over family separation might not be too happy with a world without Flores, either.


Click link for full article on Flores
edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Flores was a class-action lawsuit filed against the INS because of its policies related to the detention, processing, and release of unaccompanied illegal juveniles.

You said it yourself. Your source:

Flores was a class-action lawsuit filed against the INS because of its policies related to the detention, processing, and release of unaccompanied illegal juveniles.

Trump thought he had that handled. Take the kids away from their parents and they are now unaccompanied. Viola!

Where is the requirement they be separated from their parents?
edit on 6/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:10 AM
link   
****PDF LINK**** - Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview 2017


UAC are defined in statute as children who lack lawful immigration status in the United States, who are under the age of 18, and who either are without a parent or legal guardian in the United States or without a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody. Two statutes and a legal settlement directly affect U.S. policy for the treatment and administrative processing of UAC: the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-457); the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296); and the Flores Settlement Agreementof 1997.



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yup.. prior to Flores minors were kept with adults.

Flores ruling stopped that, requiring separation of adults and minors and requiring separate detention facilities. There are NO executions for family members.

The requirement to be separated is within the context of minors cant be housed with adults in adult detention facilities.

I have told you.. The courts have told you in Flores vs Reno and Flores vs. Meese, the Homeland security act of 2002 and the 2 laws since then, with the last being passed by unanimous consent in both houses of Congress and signed into law in 2008.

Parents are adults and when they enter the US illegally they are placed into detention facilities. Minors cannot go there. This is not a hard concept to understand if you take the time to read the entire rulings and overviews instead of just what you want to see and incorrectly interpret it.
edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Simple, remove them from their parents.
Viola! They are now unaccompanied.



edit on 6/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




requiring separation of adults and minors and requiring separate detention facilities.

I have not yet seen you cite that clause.



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thats because you dont want to be wrong on this point so here it is... again. From 6 posts up. A post you either didnt read, didnt understand, or just ignored so as not to be wrong and so you can play your stupid games with wilfull obstinance.

I did twice now in the rulings in Flores vs Reno and Flores vs Meese.

The Court order in both cases was transferred in the 2002 Homeland Security Act to the successors to the INS.
INS requirements under the ruling in Flores vs. Reno

SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS

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.


Also -

Related Processes

The Flores agreement established as INS policy that juveniles would be released without unnecessary delay, consistent with its interests to ensure the juvenile's timely appearance before the INS and the immigration courts and to protect the juvenile's well-being. Juveniles must be released to a sponsor who will accept responsibility for the juvenile. Preferred sponsors included parents, legal guardians, and close adult family members. If a juvenile has a parent in the United States, however, current INS policy requires the parent to be involved in the juvenile's release, regardless of the parent's immigration status. An undocumented parent must report to an INS officer and enter immigration court proceedings before the INS will release the juvenile. If the parent is unwilling to come forward, the juvenile will remain in INS custody, even when another acceptable sponsor is available. The current INS policy if too rigidly adhered to, may impede the INS's ability to ensure the least restrictive custody and most expeditious release of juveniles.

Unaccompanied juveniles in the Juvenile Program are required to go before the immigration courts to present their cases. The court proceedings are the responsibility of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) but are initiated by INS at the outset of the juvenile's custody. For several reasons, few juvenile cases before the immigration courts are completed while the juveniles are still in custody. After juveniles were released from custody, 68 percent failed to appear for their hearings. Legal services available for juveniles in custody are limited, hearings on the merits of cases are frequently postponed until after release of the juveniles, and in two locations hearings for juveniles in shelter care were not scheduled expeditiously.

The law does not provide for legal representation at government expense for alien juveniles. However, EOIR is actively involved in developing sources of pro bono legal aid. The other reasons for delay are, for the most part, the responsibility of EOIR. To the extent that problems in the process affect juveniles in INS custody, the INS and EOIR should follow-up on discussions already begun to find effective mutually agreeable solutions.

The report contains 28 recommendations to address the issues we identified during our review.




edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Once again. That is about unaccompanied minors.

It does not address minors who are with their parent(s). It does not say that such minors must be separated from their parents. It does not say that parents cannot be transported with their children. It does not say that parents and children cannot be detained together. It does not say that facilities to accommodate family detention cannot be established.

But that is, indeed, how the Trump administration chooses to interpret it. Contrary to prior administrations. It also makes a great deterrent, don't you think? It also means that Congress really has to get that wall built. Don't you think?

3D chess with babies as pawns.

edit on 6/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra
Simple, remove them from their parents.
Viola! They are now unaccompanied.




Then maybe their parents should have went to a port of entry and request asylum so they wouldnt be separated from their children.

Viola.. parents and kids stay together while they go thru the process.



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Then maybe their parents should have went to a port of entry and request asylum so they wouldnt be separated from their children.
Some have tried and been rejected. But what's the point? Sessions said no, asylum means this, not that. Sorry, we can't help you. No point in applying.

edit on 6/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It does and I explained it to you. You are not understanding it.

Parents illegally entering the US with their kids and are caught are arrested for illegally entering the US. They are transported to a detention facility to await their court appearance. You CANNOT house minors in adult detention facilities.

Not a hard concept to understand.

If I stop a car for speeding and the car contains an adult driver and his 2 10 and 6 year old kid in the back and the adult has a warrant. The adult is arrested and the kids are temporarily in my custody until adequate arrangements can be made to release them to the other parent or family member. If that is not possible they remain in my custody until such time a juvenile officer / Department of family services get involved to take custody of the minors and place them into temporary housing.

I cannot take the 2 minors and place them into the same cell as their parent who is under arrest.

It is illegal. Placing an illegal immigrant minor in an illegal immigrant adult detention facility with their parent is illegal.



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra




Then maybe their parents should have went to a port of entry and request asylum so they wouldnt be separated from their children.
Some have tried and been rejected. But what's the point? Sessions said no, asylum means this, not that. Sorry, we can't help you. No point in applying.


Those making those claims at the border legally can be turned away. They are not arrested UNLESS they come from a country that requires a visa to enter the US. If they dont obtain a VISA before entering the US to claim asylum they are violating immigration and international law.


Finally and I cant stress this enough. A Claim of Asylum or Refugee status is not a guarantee. People making those claims have their claims investigated and even if found substantiated the country is NOT required to accept them. All International law requires, given the circumstances, is not not send the claimant back to their home country if at all possible.

A country is NOT required to accept them.
edit on 21-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




You CANNOT house minors in adult detention facilities.
I agree.
Now show me where the Flores decision, or any decision prohibits the establishment of family detention facilities.







 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join