Media accidentally admits Trump was right about 1997 law

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Nobody denied that the Flores Settlement says children must be released in 20 days. What it does not say is that families must be separated. In fact, the whole point of it is to make sure children are with their family members.

�


Actually it does.

First -
Flores vs Reno (1993) was the original scotus ruling.
Flores vs Meese (1997) was the followup.

An example of domestic law -
A guy from Florida is speeding down a Washington state road with his 2 kids in the back seat and gets stopped. For whatever reason the driver ends up being arrested. His kids cannot be taken to the detention facility and placed into the same cell as dad is.

The first option is to contact the other parent to get the kids. In this case its not an option due to distance. A family member living in the state of Washington could take the kid but again, because he is from Florida, he has no family in Washington.

At that point the kids are in the custody of law enforcement until juvenile authorities / family services gets involved. The kids are placed in their custody and then placed with a host family until such time as dad is released or family can be contacted and make the journey to get the kids.

The same is true for illegal immigrants entering the US illegally. The parents broke the law (illegally entered the US). They are arrested and placed into a detention facility. Flores absolutely prohibits the placement of minors with adults in a detention facility. As with a US citizen the kids are taken into custody and transferred to the appropriate agency who will try to contact family (if they are in the US) to come get the kids. If there is no family in the US family from back home could come but they must enter the US legally with full identifications to have the kids released into their custody. If that is not possible then the kids remain at the facility until a host family can be located and the kids placed.

Flores requires a juvenile detention facility for immigrant minors here illegally. It also requires segregation by sex. All detention centers are licensed by the state they are located in and comply with all staffing requirements. Also showing up at a detention facility and demanding a tour and to interview children is a non starter - for anyone, including members of Congress and even law enforcement.

Minors are protected and as such its prohibits photographs of them and it also prohibits interviews. The exact same standard that applies with US juveniles in detention facilities.

This does not apply to immigrants coming thru a port of entrance.

Flores requires separation of minors from adults who have been arrested.


There are 3 recognized categories -
Asylum Seeker
Refugee
Migrant

Contrary to popular belief -
Immigrants can actually go to a US embassy or consulate in their country to start the asylum process.
Immigrants can actually go to a US embassy or consulate in their country to start the refugee process.

Migrants however are not a protected group and enjoy no special treatment / process when they come to the US. There is no such thing as an economic migrant nor can it be used as a reason for Asylum or Refugee.

There are 2 court rulings (technically 3) and 2 federal laws, the lat one being passed by Congress (Dems controlled both houses) unanimously in 2008 and signed by Bush.

The third court ruling occurred in 2015 with the Obama admin. His administration set up family detention centers to keep them together. The federal judge in that case ruled it as a violation of the Flores rulings. He was forced to separate them. That lawsuit was brought by advocacy groups for illegal immigrants who want open border.

Very good synopsis of the whole thing. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the differences between migrants and asylum seekers. For instance the woman associated with the crying child in the fake Time cover was not an asylum seeker, she was simply an illegal immigrant.

a reply to: face23785


Have you always had such issues with data interpretation?

Do you truly understand why the "crisis" manifested? Seriously man, under previous administrations they only detained about 21% of all illegals. Today its what? 100%?

Back in the day it was only a few children separated, today it is...well actually orders of magnitude more children taken into custody, and I''ll just bet that Trump's people don't give a crossed-eyed damn about the 20 day limit.

Sorry man, but this is yet another blunder by your idol.
(tell me...what does it take to bankrupt a casino?)

originally posted by: majickJimi
a reply to: face23785


Have you always had such issues with data interpretation?

Do you truly understand why the "crisis" manifested? Seriously man, under previous administrations they only detained about 21% of all illegals. Today its what? 100%?

Back in the day it was only a few children separated, today it is...well actually orders of magnitude more children taken into custody, and I''ll just bet that Trump's people don't give a crossed-eyed damn about the 20 day limit.

Sorry man, but this is yet another blunder by your idol.
(tell me...what does it take to bankrupt a casino?)

You're still hung up on taking advantage of bankruptcy law in 4 out of hundreds of business deals?

There's actually people who still think this is a good point? Well, who am I kidding, some of you [SNIPPED] still think Michael Brown had his hands up.

You're also wrong, they 20-day limit was the entire reason why he said he couldn't fix it, because the President can't edit laws. The executive order to keep the families together actually violates that law, and will likely be struck down by the courts. Congress has to fix it, as your masters in the media accidentally admitted as I demonstrated in the OP. Learn to think for yourself, it'll help you avoid being taken advantage of and tricked the way you were with this issue.

originally posted by: face23785

You're still hung up on taking advantage of bankruptcy law in 4 out of hundreds of business deals?

ROFLMAO!!! Seriously?!!! Dude, I'm hung up on nothing, however, the original question still stands; "How does One bankrupt a Casino?"

You should think about that and remember that the only man in modern history to become mildly famous bankrupting a Casino is now your hero/idol, and the man escorting the U.S. to the drain.

There's actually people who still think this is a good point? Well, who am I kidding, some of you [SNIPPED] still think Michael Brown had his hands up.

Please don't pretend to know what I think...you are wrong!

You're also wrong, they 20-day limit was the entire reason why he said he couldn't fix it, because the President can't edit laws. The executive order to keep the families together actually violates that law, and will likely be struck down by the courts. Congress has to fix it, as your masters in the media accidentally admitted as I demonstrated in the OP. Learn to think for yourself, it'll help you avoid being taken advantage of and tricked the way you were with this issue.

edit on Sun Jun 24 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Well none of that is quite true, now is it? The law in question states that it is a misdemeanor, which is frequently a non-arrestable offence. And, is past administrations that law was only enforced 21% of the time. It was Jeff Sessions who decided to enforce that law 100%, and that lead to the crisis that we now have. The whole thing is squarely on Donald's shoulders, whether you like it or not. This matter is not something that Congress "needs" to fix, as it is simply, and solely a matter for Donald to decide IF, and how he is going to enforce/change something that doesn't need it.

And, I'm so glad you brought up the media! Seriously man, this is actually kind of important.

You see, Donald's ranting about "FAKE NEWS" and how it needs to end is terribly disturbing. That is virtually the same kind of noise (about the press) that Hitler made nearly 100 years ago...what it amounts to is Donald Trump's off-handed (and quite lame) attempt to circumvent the first amendment.