NYTimes reports on conditions in US Immigrant Children Camps and says conditions are really bad

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Frocharocha

What's even worse is that The Trump Admistration's DOJ, headed by Bill Bar sent a lawyer to argue before a groups of judges that migrant children detained in their care don't need soap. toothbrushes and toothpaste beds or blankets for the DOJ to be in compliance with the Flores Settlement.

Disgusting!

It is more complex than what you have spun:

www.theatlantic.com...



"The government’s “safe and sanitary” argument did not arise from a new case generated by Trump-administration policies. It arose in 1985, during the Reagan administration, when a 15-year-old Salvadoran child named Jenny Lisette Flores was detained after entering the United States illegally, hoping to escape her country’s vicious civil war. Flores spent two months at a facility in California, confined with adult strangers in poor conditions and strip-searched regularly. In July 1985, she and three other minors brought a class action against what was then called the Immigration and Naturalization Service, challenging its policies for the care and confinement of minors.

In 1997, after a dozen years of litigation, the parties settled the lawsuit in what became known as the “Flores Agreement.” The Flores Agreement requires, among other things, that the government hold minors in facilities that are “safe and sanitary” and that they be released from confinement without delay whenever possible.

Over the years, lawyers acting on behalf of minors protected by the Flores Agreement have filed numerous motions asking judges to enforce it, claiming that the government has fallen short of its obligations. They filed the motion now at issue in 2016, during the Obama administration, arguing that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) were violating the Flores Agreement by, among other things, confining minors in facilities that are not “safe and sanitary.”

United States District Judge Dolly Gee, who considered hundreds of declarations from minors and their parents, ultimately ruled that CBP was violating the Flores Agreement. In 2017, during the Trump administration, she found that CBP failed to provide adequate food and water to minors, that it did not maintain the facilities at adequate temperatures, and that it deprived the minors of sleep by confining them on concrete floors under bright lights. Gee also found that CBP’s obligation to provide “safe and sanitary” conditions included providing soap, dry towels, showers, toothbrushes, and dry clothes. Gee ultimately ordered CBP to appoint a monitor to bring its facilities into compliance with the Flores Agreement.

Gee’s order put the government in a technical legal bind. When a federal judge appoints an official to monitor compliance with an already existing injunction or agreement like the Flores Agreement, the government cannot immediately appeal. Such a measure is considered an “interlocutory” order—an intermediate one that does not generate a final decision suitable for appellate review. The government can only appeal if the judge modifies the prior injunction or order.

So that’s what the United States argued. In its appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the United States—through Fabian and the other attorneys of the Office of Immigration Litigation—claimed that Gee had altered the deal. They argued that by ruling that “safe and sanitary conditions” specifically required things like dry clothes and toothbrushes and showers and not sleeping on concrete under bright lights, Gee changed the Flores Agreement and “substantially altered the legal relations of the parties by reading new requirements into the Agreement.” That was the premise of their assertion that they could appeal, after all."

More comprehensive at link.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Could it be that these kids are being used as a ticket into this country?

Your assuming that this is true in most cases with out having any proof except a few stories about a few times it might have happened.

Why assume the worst of these people?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fallingdown

This is Trump Administration policy and interpretation of the law. It has nothing to do with liberals.

This is Trump using children as pawns in his sick game of intimidation and torture as a deterrent of migration.

The law is the law as long as you follow it you don’t interpret it .

Are you trying to tell me that liberals aren’t using the children as pawns ?

You need to do is read what you write .

You guys couldn’t give a crap about those kids.

You want open borders and more immigration consequences be damned as long as you get your way .

Don’t preach to me about the law when you’re praising people breaking it .

This wouldn’t even be an issue if the immigrants tried to enter legally .

a reply to: xuenchen

They work under the table the way I did when I was 15.

They work at daily labor jobs that don't require that you have an id the way I did when I was homeless.

They use fake ids the way I did to buy beer when I was 19.

I'm severely disappointed in a lot of people in this thread. Doing every twist to try to justify this or blame it on people who have nothing to do with it. The private prison companies who run these detention centers get $750 a day for each kid they keep in a cage. $750 a day. They could stay at Disneyland for that.

Arguing why your concentration camp is different from other concentration camps probably means you're on the wrong side of history.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grimpachi

No , the left control the house. The right controls the senate.

So what has the house done to remedy the situation? What bills have they proposed?

I side with the left as often or more as I side with the right. On this issue, the left is wrong to complain without showing they are working towards a solution.

I also think the wall is dumb, but the left should let it be built and be done with it. It may work it may not but if it is built then that is one less issue the right can base their platform on. Gay rights was a huge issue that swung voters for the left then it was addressed the problem solved. Now the left is floundering to find an issue that will pull the majority. Sorry, but the majority of Americans are not in support of illegal immigrants flooding the nation so the right will keep winning on that issue and elections.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Fallingdown
The Liberals are using the welfare of children to their advantage again .

The way to end this mess is with a wall or permanent barrier .

Instead the Liberals would rather see children suffer .

We (the liberals....all of us) would like to state that we collectively agree that we believe that the mistreatment of children should be above partisan politics and that even the right should agree that children suffering is wrong regardless of politics.

We understand that this may be politically inconvenient for you lot but we would ask that you rise above the politics of this and call out the mistreatment of children regardless.

Yours kindly...

The collective hive mind that is "the liberals"

So, isn't the humane solution not to allow them into this country if they are destined to be treated worse the the fearful country they are fleeing?

Thanks for agreeing we need to stop them all at the border.

Kudos!

No we feel improving the conditions in these facilities would be the optimal solution.

No one cares what you think about our borders. You live on a damn island. Jeez.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

And you are able to prove your position with much better documented readily available information?

Again, I would argue that if our borders weren't so porous and open, people wouldn't be attempting to illegally invade our country. That by allowing these people asylum and easy access, we are partly responsible for this tragedy.

I wonder how many problems we create for ourselves as a society by the suppression of reality and insertion of 'feelings'?

I never assume people are bad, until they prove me otherwise. But those with true compassion for their fellow soul travelers need to be very careful because they will be taken advantage of at ever opportunity in this wonderful society.

Sometimes simple reality is much more just than anything we could create through 'feelings'. Look at this mess and all of the other messes that have been created in the pursuit of justice and try to suspend the rules of this reality.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grimpachi

No , the left control the house. The right controls the senate.

A Party technically needs 60 seats to fully control the Senate. Otherwise the minority party has the control of defeat 😎

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Fallingdown
The Liberals are using the welfare of children to their advantage again .

The way to end this mess is with a wall or permanent barrier .

Instead the Liberals would rather see children suffer .

We (the liberals....all of us) would like to state that we collectively agree that we believe that the mistreatment of children should be above partisan politics and that even the right should agree that children suffering is wrong regardless of politics.

We understand that this may be politically inconvenient for you lot but we would ask that you rise above the politics of this and call out the mistreatment of children regardless.

Yours kindly...

The collective hive mind that is "the liberals"

So, isn't the humane solution not to allow them into this country if they are destined to be treated worse the the fearful country they are fleeing?

Thanks for agreeing we need to stop them all at the border.

Kudos!

No we feel improving the conditions in these facilities would be the optimal solution.

No one cares what you think about our borders. You live on a damn island. Jeez.

Actually, I do, and so do a lot of others. It's allowed, even if it makes you sad.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What is the case# of the case that "stems from" the "Flores settlement" ❓

a reply to: Grimpachi

In 2017

In total, the bill allocates $13.8 billion to customs and border protection. That includes the $1.6 billion for the wall, $100 million to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents, $131 million for new border technology, $106 million for aircraft and sensors and $109 million for "non-intrusive inspection equipment."

It also adds $619.7 million to Immigration and Customs Enforcement over current levels, bringing total funding for ICE to $7 billion.

thehill.com...

In 2018

The massive $1.3 trillion omnibus bill does not include funding for what Trump typically refers to as the "Wall." Instead, the bill includes just under $1.6 billion for increased border security.

www.businessinsider.com...

bipartisanpolicy.org...

a reply to: Onlyyouknow

Thank you for reminding posters that this isn't about budget issues. It's about this Administration seeking to violate the Flores Agreement.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

The case before the court stems from the Flores settlement — a consent decree signed by the government in 1997 that guarantees basic rights for children detained at the border. The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to undermine the two-decade-old agreement, in particular as it pursued its policy of family separation. Currently the administration is appealing a 2017 district court ruling that found the feds had violated Flores by not providing children access to basic toiletries and adequate sleeping conditions at temporary detention facilities operated by the Border Patrol.

www.rollingstone.com...

As attorney Sarah Fabian of the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation haltingly attempted to make the Trump administration’s case in a San Francisco courtroom, she was hit with disbelieving questions from the three judges on the bench, Wallace Tashima, William Fletcher and Marsha Berzon.

Judge Berzon zeroed in on the sleep question, citing findings that the Border Patrol made children spend days in facilities with 24/7 artificial light, no beds, cold cement floors, and only an aluminum blanket for insulation. “You’re really going to stand up and tell us that being able to sleep isn’t a question of ‘safe and sanitary’ conditions?” Berzon asked. “You’re not really going to say that, right?”

If they turned them away at the border and sent them back where they came from we wouldn’t have this problem now would we? What did they expect when they come to a country not even willing to solve their own homeless problems? Let them go back home and fix their own damn problems. They’re not my problem, stop trying to make them so. Until we can resolve our own issues we have no business or the resources to try and solve another country’s problems.

a reply to: ClovenSky

I never assume people are bad, until they prove me otherwise.

When you see people, willfully and doggedly fight for the right to treat children like this, as a strategy for political gains, you have your proof.

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: Frocharocha

It's easy to avoid it - don't come.

Couldn't say better. If you can't afford yourself to get legally, then just don't. And in the end it's the children who pay the price...

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Frocharocha

So the NY Times is finally admitting there is a crisis at the border and we need a wall?

If I arrive at your house, banging on your front door with a hammer, yelling and covered in snot and tears, and so giving others reason to believe that you are the cause of my squalor, do you let me in and lovingly bathe me?

Or am I a trespasser?

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Frocharocha

So the NY Times is finally admitting there is a crisis at the border and we need a wall?

If I arrive at your house, banging on your front door with a hammer, yelling and covered in snot and tears, and so giving others reason to believe that you are the cause of my squalor, do you let me in and lovingly bathe me?

Or am I a trespasser?

a reply to: mtnshredder

It's illegal for the government to turn asylum seekers away. That's why Trump wants Congress to change the law, and reject our international treaties.

Fu😋n hole in the forums is intolerable...