twa Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said: Ah, a deflection and non-answer. Is that all you got? it beats your inference that they are ignoring non-families w/o even having real numbers. ratios vary by the composition crossing....what was the composition of the caravan we heard so much about? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/world/americas/migrant-caravan-mexico.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, twa said: it beats your inference that they are ignoring non-families w/o even having real numbers. ratios vary by the composition crossing....what was the composition of the caravan we heard so much about? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/world/americas/migrant-caravan-mexico.html I addressed that already in my post. If the raw data supports the narrative I put forward, will that in any way change your stance? That this policy is cruel and callous is beyond doubt. But, the above paired with examples like the amount of money they are spending per day for these tent cities compared to previous holdings through HHS give credence to the possibility that it is also a ****ing stupid policy as well. So why support a stupid and cruel policy, that the previously posited evidence suggests, does not serve the ultimate goals of law and order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I don't see enforcing the border as stupid or cruel, nor releasing them into the US for a later court date as effective. the raw data is influenced by composition, that so many are are attempting to cross illegally then claiming asylum certainly takes resources away from catching others though. I guess a answer on sanctuary cities shielding felons won't be forthcoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, twa said: I don't see enforcing the border as stupid or cruel, nor releasing them into the US for a later court date as effective. the raw data is influenced by composition, that so many are are attempting to cross illegally then claiming asylum certainly takes resources away from catching others though. I guess a answer on sanctuary cities shielding felons won't be forthcoming. How does this statement address separating families? I think it does not. Do you believe that people fleeing danger would not come in family units? Would you leave your children behind if you felt the need to flee a dangerous situation? Add: If you believe Obama carried out the same policies, do you believe Obama was soft on illegal immigration? Edited June 22, 2018 by RedskinsFan44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Just now, RedskinsFan44 said: How does this statement address separating families? I think it does not. Do you believe that people fleeing danger would not come in family units? Would you leave your children behind if you felt the need to flee a dangerous situation? we are no longer separating them....unless the court doesn't play nice There are even shelters on the Mexico side while they wait for openings, those that left them to cross illegally put themselves in dangerous situation. and I will note Trump has increased both judges and facilities at the border to speed up processing....twice How was his spiel about separating them?....I missed that if it was there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 38 minutes ago, twa said: I don't see enforcing the border as stupid or cruel, nor releasing them into the US for a later court date as effective. the raw data is influenced by composition, that so many are are attempting to cross illegally then claiming asylum certainly takes resources away from catching others though. I guess a answer on sanctuary cities shielding felons won't be forthcoming. We're discussing how to enforce the border, now whether or not to enforce the border. The effectiveness of release on bond has no direct bearing on the support of a policy that causes a drop in felony arrest for the sake of more misdemeanor charges. Let's really think this ratio through. In order to maintain the same raw number of felony arrests as before they would have to also pack into that same day an additional 9 more people for misdemeanors for every one felony charge. Say a CBP agent arrests on average just 4 felony cases a day. That would mean they would have to also arrest an additional 36 people on misdemeanor charges within the same 8 or 12 hour shift. I don't know about you, but I have plenty of experience with arrests and citations. With that said, it's fair to assume it can take on average 30 minutes per person to arrest, process, and hand-off to other authorities. If so, that would be 18 man hours for the 36 misdemeanor cases and 2 man hours for the felonies, which is a total of 20 hours of work in a day. I really don't think, the above is what is happening here. For that to be the case there would have to be a history of only getting 2-3 man hours of effective labor per day, per the previous ratio. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Are you suggesting just waving groups avoiding the checkpoints thru or ignoring them? How do you determine a felon is not in the group? .....once confronted you must process them,even more so if they claim asylum. no offense but your history of getting arrested and citations does not bolster your arguments nor compare to border arrest protocols/requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Brutal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 The subtly nuanced arguments about immigration policy don't seem to have convinced this guy..... No matter what differences we might have theologically or otherwise, as one father to another to applaud this man's sincerity. 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 45 minutes ago, LD0506 said: The subtly nuanced arguments about immigration policy don't seem to have convinced this guy..... No matter what differences we might have theologically or otherwise, as one father to another to applaud this man's sincerity. This is how I have felt the last week. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I have to say this is who we are or who we should be or should want to be. There are so many forces exaggerating and inciting our differences but at the end of it all, we ought to be able to reach out to one another and just simply acknowledge the humanity in one another. I have been wound up beyond overdrive for a couple years now, and there are times I look at myself and honestly don't recognize what I've become in the face of all of this. I'm not happy with it a lot of times, I can tell you that. But this simple, straightforward statement of compassion and concern from a man far removed from me in many ways touched a chord. His angst, that very basic way he saw this issue reflected in his own feelings for his family gives me hope. His reflexive response to ask himself "What can I do?" instead of the endemic "Who is to blame?" gives me hope. My cynicism knows that hope will bleed away like water poured on sand before lunchtime. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I don't normally read the Daily Mail out of the UK, it looks like a tabloid. But if this is true, it means two things: 1) it underscores the importance of being careful with what you use, image wise, to further your point or cause.. 2) not being careful makes you look like a liar and gives ammo to the opposition to claim you made stuff up or manufactured a crisis to further your own political agenda or vendetta. The little girl crying was never separated from her Mom, who claimed asylum, only in order to get a better job, and left her husband and other children behind. Ugh. And now she is the poster child for family separation. Way to go. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5869829/amp/Father-two-year-old-face-child-separation-crisis-speaks-out.html Quote The father of the Honduran girl who became the face of the family separation crisis has revealed that he still has not been in touch with his wife or daughter but was happy to learn they are safe. Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, 32, said that he had not heard from his wife Sandra, 32, who was with his two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise, for nearly three weeks until he saw the image of them being apprehended in Texas. In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, Hernandez, who lives in Puerto Cortes, Honduras, says that he was told yesterday that his wife and child are being detained at a family residential center in Texas but are together and are doing 'fine.' 'You can imagine how I felt when I saw that photo of my daughter. It broke my heart. It's difficult as a father to see that, but I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border,' he said. Denis said his wife and daughter were never separated by border control agents and remain together. more at link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Not sure it really matters which kid they use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Just now, Llevron said: Not sure it really matters which kid they use. Yeah it actually does. You can't give fundies (on either side) an inch or they run a mile with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Zguy28 said: Yeah it actually does. You can't give fundies (on either side) an inch or they run a mile with it. You are reading way too much into that story and people on the other side will make up anything they want regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Zguy28 said: Yeah it actually does. You can't give fundies (on either side) an inch or they run a mile with it. They run with anything. It doesnt even need to happen at all. Boiling Green massacre....remember that? The image you are meant to see is a crying little girl taken from her parents. Regardless of is SHE was one, it happened. We may just disagree here and I guess that's ok. But I think it's silly to even attempt the argument using the picture of the wrong little girl defunds the movement or whatever we are calling this issue. No one can claim this isnt happening because they used the wrong picture. Not sure I'm making my point well but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I have a couple questions I am hoping you all can help with. *note these are not "gotcha" questions or trying to support a narrative. I'm genuinely trying to get smarter on the subject. 1. It is said that most of the people entering have no criminal record and that their only crime is a misdemeanor for illegally crossing. Does that include crimes they may have committed in their home country? How do we get their record from their home country and how much can we trust the information provided? How do we even verify that John Smith really is the person he claims to be? I just don't know much about what records we get and how reliable that information is. 2. When seeking asylum, what claims are acceptable and how much are they verified? If someone says they are from town X that has a super high crime rate, do we take them at their word? Do we require proof they are from that area and their lives are in danger? This somewhat ties to question 1 I guess. Pretty much what info do we require and how do we verify the info is true and accurate? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 A comment from a poster named Dante3000 on an article about Melania's visit: “The First Lady turned to the children and in a sweet but somber tone began, ‘I truly understand your pain. Day after day, trapped. You don’t know who you can talk to or who around you actually cares. Even with all the fancy toys,’ as she gestured to some games and potato chips the children had scattered around their cage, ‘you barely remember what it feels like to be alive. Some days you want it to end. Not to die, but just to stop existing. Stop living trapped, imprisoned by an awful, awful man who insists on heaving his disgusting sweaty-’ at this, the First Lady stopped herself. She refocused her eyes and with a broad smile continued, ‘But one day...Yes, one day, he will die. And then you will be rich. And you can crush his stupid children under you boot heel. Well, be best’!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 8 hours ago, twa said: Are you suggesting just waving groups avoiding the checkpoints thru or ignoring them? How do you determine a felon is not in the group? .....once confronted you must process them,even more so if they claim asylum. no offense but your history of getting arrested and citations does not bolster your arguments nor compare to border arrest protocols/requirements. Again you're trying to deflect from the main point that the flip in ratio, the shift in focus from high priority targets, to low priority targets does not best suit the ultimate ends of law and order. It makes the border less safe, costs more money, fatigues our manpower, and is most of all inhumane. Can you actually have a conversation where you don't swing between zero-sum absolutes? Of course I'm not suggesting avoiding or ignoring them. What we're talking about here is the added time that comes from making misdemeanors the top priority. Processing and release on bond, takes less time than processing and separation/detention, especially since most first time misdemeanor entries are considered to be civil cases, rather than criminal. That time saved was being used to focus more time and attention on felonies, but no longer. That is the point. And of course you're going to twist my history. The whole point of that is I have personal experience to draw from to posit a reasonable time study, in order to map out time frames and labor hours. If anything, it would take MORE time to process people at the border than to get a ticket or get arrested within the states. Just think through the logistics involved, the need for interpreters, etc. I was being very generous in my estimates and it still showed how unlikely to impossible it would be for felony arrest numbers to have stayed the same, with the reported flip in ratio. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 59 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I have a couple questions I am hoping you all can help with. *note these are not "gotcha" questions or trying to support a narrative. I'm genuinely trying to get smarter on the subject. 1. It is said that most of the people entering have no criminal record and that their only crime is a misdemeanor for illegally crossing. Does that include crimes they may have committed in their home country? How do we get their record from their home country and how much can we trust the information provided? How do we even verify that John Smith really is the person he claims to be? I just don't know much about what records we get and how reliable that information is. 2. When seeking asylum, what claims are acceptable and how much are they verified? If someone says they are from town X that has a super high crime rate, do we take them at their word? Do we require proof they are from that area and their lives are in danger? This somewhat ties to question 1 I guess. Pretty much what info do we require and how do we verify the info is true and accurate? Thanks. 1. They do background check for crimes back at the home country, but you're right, the reliability of background info varies from country to country. This is part of the reason why consulate officers (or USCIS officers stationed in consulates, depending on the situation) have gotten increasingly more involved in all immigration petitions because those officers are far more knowledgeable about the type of documents that gets forged, how to verify information in that country, so forth. It is a difficulty inherent in the immigration system. USCIS, dating back to the bush years and continued through Obama years, has increased uniformity in adjudication, reliance on locally stationed staff, and improved fraud detection. But no doubt, it is always a concern and an ongoing effort. 2. "[P]ersecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." That's the standard. Obviously, that's heavy on generalities and low on specifics, especially as you delve into membership in a particular social group. Now, could you apply for an asylum because you live in a town with high crime rate? No. That won't fly. But refugees will apply because they are facing threat of gang violence from a particular gang that targets women or children (social group), national background, cultural background, etc. Immigration judges, by in large, as long as the threat can be verified and specific enough to a particular group, will recognize this as a valid ground for asylum. This, of course, is a bit controversial. And it would be reasonable for Congress to say that we will only grant asylum for persecution based on social group if there is no other viable escape or if the threat rises to such a level of human rights violation, etc. It would also be reasonable to say that if your country is so broken that they can't protect you, we'll take you in. That's a policy decision that Congress should make and the standards for asylum requires constant tinkering as the world situation changes. I also want to add that by in large, the asylum abuse stems from people using it as a means of gaining illegal entry. Asylum denial rates is over 50% since the 90's. It's not an easy and quick path. But allowing illegal crossers to claim asylum for a catch and release within the states is a broken system and needs to be corrected. As a fundamental principle, I believe that US government has an obligation to secure the borders and only let in those individuals we want to let in the country. I believe the policy should favor broad means of entry for renewable work permits and a merit based system for permanent residency and naturalization. But every act of immigration should be done with the government's permission and by a reasonably set lawful method. Going forward, I think we need to separate those who are already here illegally and deal with it in a humane and economically intelligent manner. But Congress needs to act in a measured and comprehensive way to ensure that going forward there is an immigration system that is fair, reasonable, and workable and that the border is truly secure. There should be a diverse inflow of immigrants because we choose to invite and accept them, not because we look the other way. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 What formula do you see that divines which are felons and not? I've said repeatedly that it would be better if they entered at checkpoints....and that is required by law and still waiting on the cities shielding felons response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Question from next week's Gallop Poll (I wish): “Should we do terrible **** to children?” Yes No Not sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 59 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said: I'm sure that Rev. Buford T. Pusnozzle was singing a different tune about politicians being anointed by God during Obama's years. On a totally unrelated note, Stephanie Ruhle kinda turns my crank............ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now