US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: thedigirati


Who's calling for open borders?

Why are you conflating personal property protection with Constitutional rights to have the ACLU sue the Government on behalf of someone they believe has had those rights infringed?

In all the arguments being made on either side of the aisle with respect to immigration reform, I haven't seen a single time where "open borders" was even on the ballot.

A global economic crisis appears seem likely. 100s of thousands, millions or god forbid tens of millions come through. It is financially impossible to provide them all with a court hearing, most will not show up either way, it is OPEN BORDER if there is any crisis.

And if they won't get a hearing then, nor should they now.

How does what you've said here, address in any way what I replied to?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: toms54

Yea i am pretty sure the woman and child were featured in this documentary.

frontline

The one I saw was short, less than a minute during a newscast yesterday morning. Probably NBC.

a reply to: sarra1833

didn't those human beings come under asylum which is NOT doing things illegally?

Not exactly.

Crossing the border without permission is illegal, period, just as beating someone is illegal. Either will get you arrested. Asylum is a remedy to illegal border crossing, just as self-defense is a remedy to assault and battery. If someone is arrested for assault, they have to prove in court that they were acting in self-defense before the charges are dropped. If someone is arrested crossing the border, they have to prove their asylum status before the border crossing charges are dropped.

The problem is that asylum is intended to cover things like government prosecution of people on the basis of religion, race, etc., or can be extended to the inability or refusal of a government to protect someone against such. It was never intended to cover gang activity or, as in this case, domestic abuse. If a government is neglecting or actively attacking its people, it is highly likely that our government is aware of a problem, or at least the potential of a problem. If there were prosecution of, say, Muslims, in El Salvador, people coming from El Salvador would be considered for asylum. They could request to be presented to an immigration judge who would hear their case and decide if they were actually eligible for asylum status.

That's not what's going on.

What is happening is that people from Central America are getting free passage across Mexico in order to cross the US border. Mexico doesn't want them any more than we do, so Mexico encourages them to cross into the US rather than settling in Mexico. They show up at our border armed with information on what to say to receive an asylum request... typically something along the line of "I'm being abused by my spouse" or "the gangs are abusing me." According to how the law has been perverted, simply crossing the border and saying those words means they are then eligible for a hearing by an immigration judge, and there are so many people doing it that the wait period for an immigration hearing has risen to years. So, they are released into the country, and when that asylum hearing comes up, they are not where they claimed they would be and cannot even be contacted. In a perfect world, that would simply mean they would be on the lam and eventually caught and deported. But in reality, they are usually holed up in a sanctuary city somewhere living the good life on the taxpayer dime, and many will never be deported.

Sessions' narrower interpretation of asylum fixes this problem. Someone from El Salvador can tell their story to an immigration official and that official will be able to vet their story to some degree before agreeing to grant them asylum seeker status. That will (eventually) reduce the backlog and allow immigration judges to hear cases on a timely basis. That, in turn, will allow any actual asylum seekers to have a better chance of entering legally using asylum rather than having to live in limbo, undocumented, illegal, but awaiting a hearing. Actually getting asylum allows them to legally remain in the country under US protection.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

On other words, Sessions has understood the scam and taken logical and legal action to counter it.
Makes perfect sense to all but the ideologues and propagandists.

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
The illegals are criminals. That’s the law

No, This is not correct. When a Judge says someone is to be present during a court hearing, that Judge's orders take precedence. Anyone interfering with that can be held in Contempt of Court. Any ICE Employee or member of our Government can be held in Contempt of Court. It was too late to deport her if she had already filed a case with the Court.

Now, anyone who interfered with her appearing in Court can be charged.

Text

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: thedigirati


Who's calling for open borders?

Why are you conflating personal property protection with Constitutional rights to have the ACLU sue the Government on behalf of someone they believe has had those rights infringed?

In all the arguments being made on either side of the aisle with respect to immigration reform, I haven't seen a single time where "open borders" was even on the ballot.

A global economic crisis appears seem likely. 100s of thousands, millions or god forbid tens of millions come through. It is financially impossible to provide them all with a court hearing, most will not show up either way, it is OPEN BORDER if there is any crisis.

And if they won't get a hearing then, nor should they now.

How does what you've said here, address in any way what I replied to?

They are not due a trial.

It is because of people like that, who would have the state act against people without due process, that make me thankful we have the rights we do in this country.

edit:
Confused you with another member so it seemed you suggested you believed they were

But seems relevant still as some who believe trials are due are basically calling for open borders

In all the arguments being made on either side of the aisle with respect to immigration reform, I haven't seen a single time where "open borders" was even on the ballot.

Dog whistle it in is what they want. When Trump had the detention centers, they weren't satisfied from children being reunited, they wanted them released. Now they want a trial that will take years for each and every illegal immigrant, who won't show up and go to their sanctuary cities.

As has been said that's an open call for open borders.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
The illegals are criminals. That’s the law

No, This is not correct. When a Judge says someone is to be present during a court hearing, that Judge's orders take precedence. Anyone interfering with that can be held in Contempt of Court. Any ICE Employee or member of our Government can be held in Contempt of Court. It was too late to deport her if she had already filed a case with the Court.

Now, anyone who interfered with her appearing in Court can be charged.

A local judge can't trump federal law and the immigration control powers vested to the government. He cannot create open borders out of his *$$.

The supreme will be ever more solid on the side of reason. They hold no ground and these activist judges will be put in their place.

If even a Federal Judge believes they may be exceeding their juridisction when it comes to the asssassination without due process of an actual american citizen, what do you think holds for mere deportation of noncitizens.

With Reprieve’s help, Kareem did what the system asks a law-abiding American citizen with a grievance to do. He sued, filing a complaint in district court in Washington, D.C., on March 30th, 2017, asking the U.S. government to take him off the Kill List, at least until he had a chance to challenge the evidence against him...

There was some outcry about the president now having authority to kill even Americans without due process – “I think it’s sad,” said U.S. Congressman Ron Paul – but the uproar soon faded, and America’s assassination program accelerated still more. By late 2011, we’d killed more than 2,000 “militants.”...

“I understand your thing about constitutional rights,” she says, addressing Plochocki. “[But] I don’t understand why you argue that Mr. Zaidan might have constitutional rights. He’s a foreign person.”

She pauses. Everyone in the courtroom understands the judge’s meaning: Well, # him then. Zaidan, from that moment, was toast.

“I’m not actually asking to change the process,” Collyer says. “And I understand that… [I] don’t have jurisdiction in the first place.”

This is not good news for Kareem. A federal judge has just said, out loud, that she’s not sure she has jurisdiction over the assassination of an American citizen.

how to survive america's kill list

a reply to: TheRedneck

Crossing the border without permission is illegal

People had permission until zero tolerance baby snatchin started.

Funny how we often ignore facts in order to remain in our own bubble.

I do highly recommend the video i posted above us here in this thread.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: TheRedneck

Crossing the border without permission is illegal

People had permission until zero tolerance baby snatchin started.

Funny how we often ignore facts in order to remain in our own bubble.

I do highly recommend the video i posted above us here in this thread.

Speaking of ignoring facts. You seem to have issues w them and understanding basic things.

No it wasn't legal to cross the border illegally it never has been since we set up border crossings

You can cross at checkpoints w proper documentation

Otherwise its illegal

Even the most rabid of supporters for open borders knows its been illegal since atleast 1929 and for some even before that.

Just because you state something doesn't mean its fact kiddo

Stop eating fire retardant

a reply to: CryHavoc

It was too late to deport her if she had already filed a case with the Court.

Actually, she didn't file the suit. The ACLU filed it on behalf of her and some others. She was simply a material witness. My guess is that Sessions complied by flying her back, but will continue to deport her after her testimony. Since she is not legally in the US, she does not have standing to file suit and her claims for asylum no longer fit the definition for such. The suit is attempting to reverse the decision by Sessions, which is outside the judge's ability if the law allows for the Attorney General to determine exact rules for asylum (which I think it does, but I admittedly haven't read the statute lately).

In other words, the ACLU found a liberal judge to try and usurp legislative authority from the office Congress gave it to.

TheRedneck

a reply to: howtonhawky

People had permission until zero tolerance baby snatchin started.

Firstly, no they didn't. Immigration law is clear: crossing the border without the proper documentation is illegal.

Secondly, the 'baby snatchin' did not start under Trump, or even under Obama. It has been policy since the first illegal immigrant crossed the border and claimed asylum. It's not even limited to border crossings... it happens every time anyone is incarcerated for a crime and has children, even US citizens.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

People had permission until zero tolerance baby snatchin started.

Firstly, no they didn't. Immigration law is clear: crossing the border without the proper documentation is illegal.

Secondly, the 'baby snatchin' did not start under Trump, or even under Obama. It has been policy since the first illegal immigrant crossed the border and claimed asylum. It's not even limited to border crossings... it happens every time anyone is incarcerated for a crime and has children, even US citizens.

TheRedneck

Yes they were advised by the previous admin to cross the border and seek out a border agent.

Zero tolerance started under trump. that is the baby snatchin. they only other cases of families being separated was only done in a few cases where there was an immediate threat to the child. That is no way the same and you trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.

watch the video

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

People had permission until zero tolerance baby snatchin started.

Firstly, no they didn't. Immigration law is clear: crossing the border without the proper documentation is illegal.

Secondly, the 'baby snatchin' did not start under Trump, or even under Obama. It has been policy since the first illegal immigrant crossed the border and claimed asylum. It's not even limited to border crossings... it happens every time anyone is incarcerated for a crime and has children, even US citizens.

TheRedneck

Yes they were advised by the previous admin to cross the border and seek out a border agent.

Zero tolerance started under trump. that is the baby snatchin. they only other cases of families being separated was only done in a few cases where there was an immediate threat to the child. That is no way the same and you trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.

watch the video

Actually there were twice as many under Obama but hey who cares about facts

a reply to: howtonhawky


Mind if I give you a little insight as there is a great breakdown from VOX on this very topic, and I think it's relevant to any discussion going forward:

But the effects of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for prosecuting illegal entry this spring — the separation of families as a matter of standard government practice for about six weeks, and now (thanks to Trump’s executive order) a coming court fight over the indefinite detention of families seeking asylum — are reminiscent, for those of us who’ve been following immigration for a while, of what the Obama administration did in 2014.
The comparison to Obama’s policies is especially relevant now that the Trump administration is seeking to keep families in immigration detention for weeks or months. The reason that Trump can’t do that under a current judicial order is that the courts stepped in to stop Obama from doing it.
Now Trump is trying to remove the shackles placed on his predecessor.

… and one more

The best way to describe Donald Trump’s current policy toward families crossing the US-Mexico border is this: He just went from being much harsher than Barack Obama to trying to get the courts to let him be as harsh as Obama was.

Can read the full article here is you'd like


Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with either policy...but if you're arguing Zero Tolerance versus Obama, at least argue it with intellectual integrity.

a reply to: alphabetaone

i do not mind and in tha video i posted it was pointing out the same thing.

That although obama tried to do zero tolerance he never succeeded and that gave way to the illegals being told to report to a border agent after crossing. That is written into the law that covers crossing the border to be a crime. it states it is a crime unless an official directs otherwise and an official did just that during bamas reign but trump never recended that direction and instead he just started a new policy without any warning.

Never before have we separated families. We have always protected children by sometimes separating some if there was an immediate danger for the welfare of the child. Trying to conflate those two may work on a message board but in tha courts there is a very distinct difference in the two.

least argue it with intellectual integrity

It is running out of my mouth here!

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

People had permission until zero tolerance baby snatchin started.

Firstly, no they didn't. Immigration law is clear: crossing the border without the proper documentation is illegal.

Secondly, the 'baby snatchin' did not start under Trump, or even under Obama. It has been policy since the first illegal immigrant crossed the border and claimed asylum. It's not even limited to border crossings... it happens every time anyone is incarcerated for a crime and has children, even US citizens.

TheRedneck

Yes they were advised by the previous admin to cross the border and seek out a border agent.

Zero tolerance started under trump. that is the baby snatchin. they only other cases of families being separated was only done in a few cases where there was an immediate threat to the child. That is no way the same and you trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.

watch the video

Actually there were twice as many under Obama but hey who cares about facts

you have made it crystal clear that you do not care about facts.

There were not twice as many separations under obama. That is you mistaken facts again.

There were indeed around 10,000 unaccompanied minors detained under obama but that is a separate issue than separating families.

a reply to: howtonhawky

There were indeed around 10,000 unaccompanied minors detained under obama but that is a separate issue than separating families.

Yes, let's talk about the facts, shall we?

According to the Washington Post, nearly 70,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended at the border in 2014.

That was just for the year 2014.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: howtonhawky

There were indeed around 10,000 unaccompanied minors detained under obama but that is a separate issue than separating families.

Yes, let's talk about the facts, shall we?

According to the Washington Post, nearly 70,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended at the border in 2014.

That was just for the year 2014.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

most came on that train without parents

we still have 10,000 in detention from what another poster has pointed out to me.

that is not the same as what trump is doing and is in no way related to zero tolerance policy today that states separating families.

do you have a point?

10,000 is somewhere around 70,000

edit on 12-8-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Deetermined


Well, for starters, if it's according to the Washington Post, why are you linking from the Examiner?

But that aside...

Both presidents prosecuted many border crossers. But Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy created family separation.
Prosecuting people for illegal entry into the US is not new. Illegal entry and illegal reentry have been the two most commonly prosecuted crimes in federal court for years — often via mass trials that basically prosecuted dozens of people at once. Obama didn’t start this trend, but he certainly continued it.
While people charged with illegal entry or reentry made up as much as half of all people prosecuted in federal court in April 2018, they still made up only 10 percent of all people Border Patrol apprehended for crossing into the US between ports of entry.
In other words, officials were still deciding not to prosecute a lot of people — or, at least, didn’t have the resources to prosecute a lot of people and so had to be deliberate in deciding who deserved to be prosecuted. As a general rule — though not always — people who said they feared persecution in their home countries and wanted asylum were not prosecuted. Neither were people who came to the US with their children.
In April 2018, however, Trump’s Justice Department (led by Jeff Sessions) announced that they would start prosecuting every illegal entry case referred to them by the Department of Homeland Security. And in May 2018, Sessions and the Department of Homeland Security announced that they would start referring everyone who entered illegally for prosecution: “zero tolerance.”
The Trump administration isn’t actually prosecuting everyone who crosses the border between ports of entry yet — or even the majority of them. But the implied corollary to the “zero tolerance” policy was that the Trump administration would no longer make decisions about whom to prosecute based on whether someone was seeking asylum — or whether they were a parent.
That meant that parents were now being referred into the custody of the Department of Justice — while their children were separated from them and reclassified as “unaccompanied minors.”

From Same VOX article as earlier posted

Also important to note the distinction:

Trump made separating families a matter of standard practice. Obama did not.
It’s not that no family was ever separated at the border under the Obama administration. But former Obama administration officials specify that families were separated only in particular circumstances — for instance, if a father was carrying drugs — that went above and beyond a typical case of illegal entry.

We don’t know how often that happened, but we know it was not a widespread or standard practice.
Under the Trump administration, though, it became increasingly common. A test of “zero tolerance” along one sector of the border in summer 2017 led to an unknown number of family separations. Seven hundred families were separated between October 2017 and April 2018.
From May 7 to June 20, separating a family who had entered between ports of entry was the standard practice of the Trump administration. It was the default.
Trump administration officials denied family separation was a “policy” for legalistic reasons, but they affirmed that “zero tolerance” prosecutions were a policy. Until Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday allowing families to be kept together in immigration detention while parents were prosecuted, the administration maintained that separating families was an inevitable outcome of prosecuting parents.
Not every family was separated. But dozens of families a day were. At least 2,300 families were separated over those six or so weeks.
We don’t know how many families were separated under the Obama administration, but there’s no reason to believe that it numbered in the thousands even over the eight years that Obama was president. Because it simply wasn’t standard practice. Under Trump, it was.


Both presidents housed “unaccompanied” minors in temporary facilities — but under Obama, they’d pretty much all arrived in the US unaccompanied

The 2014 border “surge” was driven partly by an increase in families attempting to cross into the US from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. But it was primarily driven by an increase in “unaccompanied alien children” — people under 18, coming to the US without parents or guardians — from those same countries.
The federal government had a system to deal with unaccompanied kids, but it was underfunded and overloaded even before the 2014 “surge” — and quickly got backed up. As a result, Border Patrol ended up holding kids for days beyond the 72 hours they were legally supposed to, and the government had to spin up temporary holding shelters for children that looked a lot like jails.
Some of the pictures of these sites went viral again in 2018, with people either misidentifying them as pictures of children separated from their parents under Trump or as proof that Trump’s policy was identical to Obama’s. Neither is true.

Keeping facts straight in this argument is pretty important...if we're gonna have an honest discussion. Like I said, I take neither policy side in this, I like the facts more than a partisan spin.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Yes they were advised by the previous admin to cross the border and seek out a border agent.

Oh, God, where do I start?

Anyone who is requesting asylum should seek out a border agent. That is obvious. It has always been obvious. If you have a legal excuse for being here, a remedy to illegal border crossing, the best avenue is always to be upfront about it.

The President does not have the power to grant exemption from the laws. That was the whole problem with DACA and DAPA. He only has that authority by Executive Order in situations not addressed by Congress.

Zero tolerance started under trump. that is the baby snatchin. they only other cases of families being separated was only done in a few cases where there was an immediate threat to the child. That is no way the same and you trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.

It has been the policy of the United States to not incarcerate children for the actions of their parents for as long as I can remember. Zero tolerance did start under Trump, simply because the system was being abused to the point it has become unworkable. The lack of zero tolerance is the reason the border is under such assault.

There is nothing disingenuous about understanding the law.

watch the video

Read the law. The video is not a US statute.

TheRedneck