How can Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize when his is constantly working at dividing his own country?
Ever since he was elected president, he has constantly called the Main Stream Media the "Fake News." No modern American president has publicly spoken this way about the press. After meeting with Kim, he did not like what some journalist said about him and their meeting so he tweets this.
"So funny to watch the Fake News, especially NBC and CNN. They are fighting hard to downplay the deal with North Korea. 500 days ago they would have “begged” for this deal-looked like war would break out. Our Country’s biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools!"
Trump frequently portrays the news media as one of his enemies, but rarely has he been this blunt about it. Wednesday's tweet hearkens back to February 2017, when he called several news outlets "the enemy of the American People!"
How is calling the news outlets the enemy of the American people uniting this country? That is what dictators do when they want state control of the news. That's what Kim and Putin and many third world countries have done. it is even what Hitler did. He actually had Ministers of Propaganda.
To me, Fox News is a right wing propaganda machine that disseminates opinions and miss-information to people who have blind faith in what they are hearing and seeing and believe it as fact.
Here is a little something that I picked up from a Fox/Trump supporter on another forum. It shows how Fox News has a much larger audience than the Main Stream Media.
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON. JUNE 11, 2018
FOXNEWS HANNITY 5,902,000
FOXNEWS INGRAHAM 4,560,000
FOXNEWS TUCKER 4,222,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,788,000
FOXNEWS THE FIVE 2,634,000
MSNBC SPECIAL 2,378,000
CNN CUOMO 2,362,000
CNN TONIGHT 1,790,000
CNN COOPER 1,691,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 1,551,000
If this is the case, isn't Fox News and its cohorts really the Mains Stream Media and aren't they in bed with Trump to divide the country? After all, Trump gets a lot of advice from Hannity who doesn't even hold a government position, but acts as senior advisor to Trump.
In my view Fox News is the civilian branch of the GOP whose purpose it is to help Trump bring the democratic party to its knees. And they are being very successful in their endeavors. But is that really good for the country to have a one party government and two branches of news, where one branch is constantly being praised by the president while the other is being constantly demeaned and discredited by him by calling them the fake news and the enemy of the American people? Do you really think the Nobel Committee is going to take kindly to Trump's behavior of dividing his own country? Our country is more at a "below the surface" civil war then we have been in a long time.
Can't imagine anyone worst at peace, today, than Trump
He's not a moral man but he's handling business. People want to judge him for separating families but if you read that a child was taken away from a mother breaking the law, you wouldn't care. You may even praise it. Hard to handle a kid when you are in jail after all. People are selective in their judgment instead of practical. You can't pick and choose which laws to enforce. When you buy into such rhetoric you feed ratings and agendas. You no longer even care about the law unless it benefits your point of view. Politics in this nation have split to such extreme that telling a person something as logical as we need more compromised it met with 'vote, get rid of republicans" or democrats if they are in charge. However, our framework as a nation was always meant to support a compromise. It's easy to see Trump in the global market stirring up trouble but it's harder to sit down and ask yourself why? Does he have a valid reason for it? The answer is overwhelming, yes. America doesn't have free trade with many nations because other nations are using loopholes to tax imports and exports to our country. A BMW, for example, cost nearly twice here what it does in Germany. You can say well 'the shipping cost' but are you even investigating that? As a private shipper who is shipping in low quantity, you could easily ship your own vehicle to Germany for 800-1200 dollars. That's if Germany didn't impose taxes upon you that they sugar coat using regulations they don't even impose on their own automakers. The fact is that BMW is spending around 400 per vehicle shipping to the United States but charging 25 thousand dollars more on average here. This becomes even more troubling when you realize that BMW is actually producing a fair amount of vehicle in the US. Part of the mark up is taking advantage or capitalism but the greater part is the German government taking advantage of free trade. Meanwhile, a Chevy cost about the same in every country it's not taxed to death for being important using some kind of 'Carbon tax" bs that was never supposed to be used for that purpose. This is but one example of how other countries are promoting their own good by taxing ours while charging our manufactures to make the vehicle for them. When Trump said he wants totally free trade suddenly everyone needed to talk about it because other countries just want the cake and to eat it too. Iran, on the other hand, is a power play in bad form. However, my thoughts on Iran and Russia are not the same as most. There are legitimate reasons for both having issues with America and poor decisions have been made on both sides. I felt Obama was doing a decent job with Iran while doing a horrible job with Russia. I feel Trump has been more open to Russia and has worked to destroy Iran. I can speculate why in both cases but honestly, to really have a peace would require both. However, if he seals this deal with North Korea and somehow this war ends then there should be little doubt that the pressure and rhetoric he placed upon North Korea had an effect. Obama talked about redline and consequences in speeches but Trump was tweeting about how to attack North Korea and the lack of stability that's given off by his erratic behavior favored peace here. Rhetoric is one thing but an actual war was another for Kim. He always had a sister and SK was always wanting to listen, the condition here that changed is Kim believed for the first time that America would strike and possibly strike first. Does he deserve a Nobel peace prize for it? No, but neither did Obama. There are far more deserving people who have a much more limited power that has done amazing things. However, he's trendy and trends rule the world now. Is Trump a great president? No, he's really good at some things as I have seen recently but he's not a great man. Most independents I think would agree as we are not consumed in some WWE match of politics. Obama was a B+ president and so far Trump has a solid B. Morally? Yes, Obama appeared to be a better man but Obama is gone. This is about what America needs now not about what we needed yesterday. Often a good mix of ideas is how you create balance. Sadly, compromise and logic have become second fiddle to rhetoric and hate in our political spectrum. We actually say things like "you don't have the freedom to choose God anymore" or "our human rights, racism and women's rights are the worse" which is hilarious. Maybe taking a step back and looking around we can see that the UK has far fewer women in power positions within large companies. India, don't get me started on that. Child rape is fine as long as it's a MUSLIM! ... Iran, you can't drive if your women and being white in South Africa is almost a death sentence today. There are a few countries you can argue maybe doing a slightly better job than the US but only one or two come to mind. Look at all the factors, not just the ones you think are real. Freedom of religion is strong in this nation and has been for a long time. I've been to London, spent a lot of time in England and I've seen how they treat others. It is not a racially and religious accepting society people pretend it is. Muslims are targeted on buses and trains with hate speech and outrage, that's an everyday thing there and far worse than most of what you'll ever see in the US. Even our 'crazy gun violence" is down when significantly when you consider population increase. The stage of gun violence is what has changed. We are moving in a positive direction but we still need a lot of things figured out. The extremes are too much. Saying women can get an abortion, sure, but denying that at 7 months pregnant you missed your window, is illogical. That's not a fetus at that point and maybe people who argue its still right should use their all-knowing brains to actually follow the biology of a babies development inside the womb. It's not even up for debate, it's a baby and more than likely very capable of surviving just fine as is. This isn't an opinion it's fact. We let our opinions warp our views far too often. So when a Republican says there should be limits on abortion, logically you should agree but if your politics prevent you from admitting the truth then you have real problems. It's insane we are this way but it's not Trump's fault, it's been going this way for a long time. He simply used the divide to rally his party base just like Clinton and Bernie tried to use their ideas to do the same. Saying you are willing to work with the other side now gets you blacklisted like John McCain, you go from war hero to a traitor who couldn't' handle the punishment and SANG to the enemy. It's a sad place and we keep finding new reasons to divide and hate each other on a daily basis while not handling the issues at heart.
In India, we're reeling from the same turmoil. Our Prime Minister is not outrightly coming out spewing hate but his party members, his supporters and media in cohorts with his party are openly calling the dissenters 'anti-nationals' and asking them to leave the country. Belligerent behaviour, trolling, and crime against minorities has become commonplace. This rise in far-right and populist leaders all over the world is alarming and a cause of worry.
You can say the same about NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN, MSNBC...being the Cheering squad for the Democratic Party...
In terms of numbers, that is why they are the main stream media compared to Fox and talk radio which is alternative conservative media.
As for the Nobel Peace prize, it is meant to award people who has a hand in formenting peace around the world...not necessarily harmony within a country especially one that is so evenly divided as in the US today.
By that argument of yours, how could they award the peace prize to Obama, he was the souce of much discord in the US over his 8 years...
J: You can say the same about NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN, MSNBC...being the Cheering squad for the Democratic Party...
M: That's true, except if you really watched CNN, you would know they have guests like Kellyanne Conway, Jeffery Lord, Guiliani, Lewandowski, Stephen King, and many others from Fox that are very conservative.
J: In terms of numbers, that is why they are the main stream media compared to Fox and talk radio which is alternative conservative media.
M: What numbers are you talking about? In your previous post, you just showed me how Alternative Conservative Media outnumbers MSM in viewership. I like your term for right wing media. I'm going to call it the ACM from now on. Thank you.
J: As for the Nobel Peace prize, it is meant to award people who has a hand in formenting peace around the world...not necessarily harmony within a country especially one that is so evenly divided as in the US today.
M: So you think that removing over 2,300 Central American children from their parents to possibly never know of their whereabouts again, is fomenting peace around the world? And having trade wars with major foreign industries is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?
J: By that argument of yours, how could they award the peace prize to Obama, he was the souce of much discord in the US over his 8 years...
M: Please list all the things that Obama did to create much discord in the world over his 8 years as president, compared to Trump's discord in the world with his time in office.
That is so easy... Obama in failing to deal with ISIS, created the Syrian refugee crisis... over 1 million people affected by his policy. His lead from behind policy has left the free world without a leader and lead to chaos. His apology tour at the start of his administration set the tone for the rest of his career... a weak and desperate leader. So desperate, he was willing to pay the Iranians for hostages and for the Iran nuclear deal. To this day, we don't know where the billions in cash come from that was sent to Iran and funding new terrorists...
Jack: This is easy for me also:
J: That is so easy... Obama in failing to deal with ISIS, created the Syrian refugee crisis... over 1 million people affected by his policy.
M: Obama did not create the refugee crisis. It was created by Bashar Al Assad committing genocide on his own people. The majority of his people are a different form of Shia than he is. He also received help from Putin's bombers. It can be argued that Obama had already weakened ISIS to the point when Trump took over, they were ready to be defeated. I will give him credited for letting his field commanders make their own decisions.
J: His lead from behind policy has left the free world without a leader and lead to chaos.
M: Lead from behind is a euphemism. What chaos did it lead the world to?
J: His apology tour at the start of his administration set the tone for the rest of his career... a weak and desperate leader.
M: "Apology tour" is another euphemism and is right wing rhetoric. The rest of that sentence is a regurgitation of Fox News propaganda. How could a weak and desperate president get elected for a 2nd term?
J: So desperate, he was willing to pay the Iranians for hostages and for the Iran nuclear deal. To this day, we don't know where the billions in cash come from that was sent to Iran and funding new terrorists...
M: That was Iran's own money that we were holding and they wanted it back. Again you only believe Trump and Fox News. Here is the real story.
http://time.com/4441046/400-million-ira … e-history/
Obama made several speeches around the world apologizing for our past sins... Fox news and I did not create anything. It is his legacy. They are enshrined in video on youtube.
As for ISIS and Syria, it was his failed policies to lead that lead to this humanitarian crisis. If he had stopped ISIS when he was adviced by his generals, this would not have escalated to this point. Again, this is history, just look it up. Fox news only reported on it. It was Obama that gave the orders.
As for being reelected a second term, he and Ben Rhodes orchestrated the Benghazi deceit so that he could be re-elected while blaming the incident on an youtube video sending Susan Rice on 7 shows to put out that lie.
So you see, everything that is going right now, is a result of his failures in his 8 years and now Trump is fixing...
Jack: You can believe what you want. But time will tell. Trump has deregulated the financial markets. That is the same thing that caused the 2008 financial meltdown. The market can't continue upward forever, there will be a crash because there always is one, but he will blame it on the liberal democrats, because he can't own his own mistakes.
He and his people don't have a clue as to how to reunite over 2300 separated children from their parents. But he doesn't care about that either and has already blamed the democrats for his screw-ups. North Korea is already starting up their reactors. He will probably blame that on the democrats as well. Harley Davidson is already moving part of their assembly plants to other countries because of his trade wars. Many are predicting job losses because of his high tariffs imposed on imported materials.
I have already shown you that Trump and the ACM were wrong about the money given to the Iranians. But I'm sure you won't believe that as well. Many of the things you have listed as Trump's accomplishments are just at their beginning stages, but may have long term negative consequences. We will just have to wait and see. As they say, it's not over until the fat lady sings.
I am a patient guy... Let's wait and see. The mid term election is coming up soon.
Let's revisit this after the election. we will see how many of his accomplishments come true...
In either case, you have to admit Trump is no joke. He is consequential whether you support him or not...
Jack: He is no joke and he is consequential. That is for sure. However, his impulsiveness concerns me. He operates on impulse and instinct alone, which causes chaos and his backtracking of policies and procedures because he doesn't think things through. It's like "ready, fire, aim." Look what happened to those 2,300 children. What he does think through is how to market his image as always victorious, even when he isn't and the tremendous counter-punching of his opponents. It is like an ugly, excessive use of force.
I am concerned for this country and it's people in the long term. I think he is going to take a wrecking ball to the entire organization of his administration. He and Steve Bannon believe in what they call "economic nationalism" where the doors are closed on globalization including trade and immigration. The purpose of which is to have the money flow to the top of the food chain. That's what the tax breaks for the corporations, super-rich, and trade wars are about.
Brexit is breaking away from the EU and becoming nationalized. This is how it will affect the derivatives market.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of- … K&IR=T
Trump doesn't seem to have any concern for the severe weather patterns that we have experienced in recent years. They not only create crisis, but they also are costing a lot of money. We need to do something on our seaboards like what they have done in Amsterdam to control the oceans flooding from hurricanes and severe weather or it is going to cost us not only in money but in lives lost.
on the contrary, he has more sensitivity and know how and instinct than you or the press give him credit for.
Haven't you noticed why our country has been going downhill, and the poll show we were heading the wrong direction, and our political leaders seems to be tin ear? Trump comes along to blow up the existing structure which was corrupt and needed to be cleared or drained...
Here is a businessman, who has no previous legislature experience and yet has accomplished more in 1.5 years in office, than some have done in 30 years of being in government. How is that possible?
This is all so true Jack, It is perhaps the fear of the unknown for liberals , For decades they have called for smashing the political atom in the US , all of a sudden Trump comes along , smashes that political atom , successfully changes the course inside of a year and a half brings corporate America to a standing ovation ; NOW liberals want so kind of political do -over ? Maybe they are just never going to be happy ?
One more thing, what happened to Trump has happened before to Ronald Reagan. I lived through that period. All the charges against Trump has been used against Reagan... He was a joke, a second rate actor reading his lines... he was a cowboy, he was an idiot, he caused the homeless, he incited the Soviet union by calling them evil, he wants to start a nuclear war....Oh my...
Guess what none of it was true... Reagan was a great leader and had principles and won the popular vote of the people from both aisles...He was a patriot and wanted America to succeed... in the process, the world benefitted especially those in the former soviet bloc...
Mark my words, Trump is another Reagan in the making...
One of the real problem in our country is that people like you who does not see bias in the main stream media and complains about Fox news. If anything p, Fox news is one of the few homest brokers of news. It has a conservative bent but so what? The rest of the media have liberal bent...the difference is fox admits it while the others claim they are main stream...
Jack: I have watched CNN for years. I have never heard them call themselves mainstream media. However, I have heard fox news call them that. I have heard Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin et al, call them the lame stream media.
I have heard Trump call them the fake news and the enemy of the people. This person who shot and killed all of those five news people could have been triggered by Trump's "Enemy of the People." Notice, I said "could have."
I think we all suffer from confirmation bias. Here is an excerpt from Psychology Today
"Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true."
What I have been presenting in my comments about Reagan are the other side of your confirmation bias, the part you and others choose to ignore, but are facts.
Here is the link to the article. You may want to read it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … ation-bias
The below the surface civil war has been brewing. Look at your complaints and compare them to complaints when a Democrat was in office. Everyone is chicken little.
Don't want a civil war brewing? Be more considerate of opposing views. Find the rational reasons that helped form them. Work together to find a fair middle ground.
As long as each side finds the other ignorant, or ill informed and attempts to force change without consensus you'll have contention and strife.
Don't blame Trump for problems we all created and actively keep participating in.
That's right, just because Spanky lies a half dozen times a day, insults anyone he doesn't agree with, supports pedophiles and racists for public office, does away with formerPOTUS protocol, and in every way seeks to separate us from our allies while talking sweet to our enemies, it doesn't have any effect on the division between the parties.
So you don't believe the way the POTUS acts has any effect on his constituents? Ha! Shortly after Spanky was elected I heard a couple of people say, "Now that Trump's president, we can start saying N****r again. "
You'd be wrong....
Randy , where DO you buy this crap that you constantly spew ?
Once again . Trump supporters are all;
Is this the limit of your political insight ?
Yes, I suppose if you ran across an ignorant person that proved your point.
Everybody: This division all started when Reagan removed the Fairness Doctrine. Fox News was born and a short time later CNN was born. Reagan wanted a conservative news outlet and Ted Turner of CNN, wanted a more liberal bent to the news. So yes, through the years, we have all perpetuated one side or the other, but Trump is throwing gasoline on the kindling to make a huge bonfire. Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." But that doesn't seem to bother Trump. He delights in division, because he can burn the house down and rebuild it to his liking, with his yes men.
If you find value in Lincoln's statement wouldn't it be wiser to throw some water, to attempt compromise, to give a little slack rather than throwing your own gas? Rather than constantly pointing out "flaws" (according to you), refusing to acknowledge achievements, refusing any change, however small, from your own concept of where we should go as a country?
What do you think about Pruitt, Dan? I haven't heard your take on him, but even Fox is coming down on him now.
W: If you find value in Lincoln's statement wouldn't it be wiser to throw some water, to attempt compromise, to give a little slack rather than throwing your own gas? Rather than constantly pointing out "flaws" (according to you), refusing to acknowledge achievements, refusing any change, however small, from your own concept of where we should go as a country? Just asking..
M: What I'm pointing out as flaws is not according to me. It is according to Trump. Do you deny that he discredits and demeans the news, except for fox by calling it fake news and the enemy of the American people? Why would he do that, unless he wants to divide the country?
It's not my job to point out his achievements. When Obama was president, did you point out his achievements and want to work with him? Why don't you point out his achievements?
Of course it's not your "job" to point out achievements, for that will do nothing to expand the divide - the goal of constant degradation of anything and everything remotely connected to Trump.
It's just a little silly, don't you think, to whine about division while doing your best to promote and expand it?
Wilderness: I'm affecting a few people in this forum by commenting about Trump. However his attacks of calling the free press fake news and the enemy of the American people is causing a division of millions of people in this country. Why would a president do that unless he wanted to divide the country? How is that uniting the country?
As far as achievements go I don't believe he has achieved anything, other than much disruption and his own self-aggrandizing. Please prove me wrong.
Ah. You don't have the ability Trump does, so you can do the same thing but it's all right. Even though it is the people, not the president, causing division, it is all right because individually they are all weak.
If you refuse to acknowledge achievements there isn't anything to say, is there? I'm positive you know them as well as I do, but refuse to acknowledge them because there is then good in Trump's tenure and that cannot be allowed, now can it?
Wilderness: After 8 years of Obama's achievements, how many of them did you acknowledge or list? Let me guess, none because you didn't think he achieved anything. Trump is now blaming the democrats for their split up of parents and their children at the border. Why should I even support a man who can't even own his own mistakes? But he sure is great at blaming others for problems that he has created.
How many did I acknowledge? All of them. Increasing border crossing catches. Ending the recession, although I would have liked to have something to show for it (like rebuilt dams and highways) rather than just giving gifts of money. I suppose he played a part in catching Bin Laden, although it was no more than authorizing the mission others planned. A couple of others.
What does that have to do with your intentionally sowing as much discord and doing what you can to split the nation?
Who wrote the law splitting children from parents? Who voted for it? I don't know - do you? (Hint - it wasn't Trump).
Spanky condones it and could stop such shit if he wanted to, Dan. He doesn't want to though.
What is YOUR solution - you know, the one Trump could use to stop it. Within the confines of law, of course, and with monies already provided by congress?
I highly doubt that you have any idea at all what Trump wants or does not want. You have shown a consistent inability to understand anything happening at his level - why should this be any different?
Who started taking the kids away from their parents Dan, on whose orders? That would be the guy who could stop it. Or do YOU know?
That's what I asked you - who wrote and voted for the laws requiring it? Why didn't you answer - are you ignorant of the answer (and don't care because you'd rather blame Trump) or it was primarily Democrats (unthinkable because you can't blame Trump then)? You're so sure it can (legally) be stopped - "what is YOUR solution - you know, the one Trump could use to stop it. Within the confines of law, of course, and with monies already provided by congress?"
Yes, that's why I asked you, Dan. I don't claim to know everything and never have. Thrill me with your infinite knowledge if you please.
Got it. You don't have a clue to made the laws, so will blame Trump for something that happened decades ago. And you don't have a clue what can be done with the kids, so will blame Trump for it, too.
Hi there Randy,. I saw your exchange with Wilderness, and took a look around with Google.
It seems the answer to your question about who could stop the separations would be AG Jeff Sessions.
By fact, it is a crime to enter the U.S. illegally. The separations are the result of the Session's DOJ deciding to enforce the immigration laws rather than continue former administrations' ,(multiple ones), non-enforcement of those same immigration laws by abiding a policy of "catch and release" which just recorded their illegal entry and charged them with the crime, which started an immigration process - and then turned them loose to come on in.
The result is that as law breakers, the adult illegal immigrants are jailed - instead of being turned loose - while the immigration process is determined. The separation policy's logic is that you don't put kids in jail with criminals - even if it is their parents. I will leave it to you as to whether you think the kids should be in a jail rather than a reception center or relative, or foster care facility.
Wilderness is right, there is nothing Pres. Trump can legally do to stop the separations. Of course he could follow Pres. Obama's DACA example and just order that the law be ignored, but that is not a legal option - just a publicly accepted one. (or maybe not so publicly-accepted any longer)
So to your point Pres. Trump could ask the DOJ to not enforce the immigration law, and he and AG Sessions could then stop the separations.
But to Wilderness' point, that is not exactly a legal option. As we so frequently hear, (especially from Jake), we are a nation of laws, which a president pledges to uphold. So any DACA-like policies he ordered would not be technically legally valid - I think. (I couldn't even qualify as a jailhouse lawyer)
Since I am confident you probably already knew all that, it was just a good lead-up to this question. "Do you think the same sentiment, (that it is a travesty to separate kids from their law-breaking parents), would hold for similar violations of some of our other laws, like; a single parent selling drugs out of a car with their kids in the back seat, or mom and dad getting caught burglarizing a house while the kids waited in the car?"
Oath of office for the AG:
"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."
As near as I could tell from the somewhat garbled video of Session's swearing in, it is the oath he took.
Nowhere do I see that he is to pick and choose among the laws to be enforced and nowhere do I see where he is to allow foreign invasion across our borders without taking action. I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think he has the legal right to ignore immigration laws, or illegal border crossing, any more than the president does.
Thanks for your input, GA. I don't have an answer for this problem, and even asking about it seems to strike a chord of discourse with some. Yes, I assumed Sessions was the one to stop this separation of children from their parents, but with a long history of racist behavior to his credit, it seems he isn't too keen on the idea. A true holdover from the George Wallace era.
There are more of those than I ever dreamt...…...
Holy cow Randy. Now it is a racism issue? First you were damning Pres. Trump for the separations, but now you agree that it is Sessions that is the authorizing party, but, but, but ... he's a racist. The separations are all about racism.
Part of the issue is about how asylum seekers are being treated, which does not comply with Federal and international law.
According to Article 31 of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:
"(a)[Refugees] should not be penalized or exposed to any unfavourable treatment solely on the ground that their presence in the country is considered unlawful; they should not be subjected to restrictions on their movements other than those which are necessary in the interest of public health and public order;"(1)
Prosecuting an asylum seeker because of how they entered the country to seek asylum, is therefore illegal under international law.
The US is a signatory of Article 31, and the convention's definitions were incorporated into federal law via the Refugee Act 1980(2)(3)
Contrary to the law, the Attorney General has stated his intention to prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally: "I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple."(4)
That is a statement of intent to violate international law, and it disregards the country's obligations to uphold, and comply with international law.
Human rights organizations are reporting that asylum seekers are in fact being prosecuted for entering the country illegally:
"A Mexican woman who crossed the border in search of protection and immediately sought assistance from border agents, was referred for criminal prosecution by CBP, convicted of illegal entry in November 2017 in Tucson, Arizona, and then deported back to Mexico despite her request to be interviewed by a U.S. asylum officer"(5)
"A Honduran woman who fled death threats called U.S. authorities after she safely crossed the border but was referred for criminal prosecution and convicted of illegal entry in a group hearing in December 2017 even though she told U.S. border officers she wanted to seek asylum."(6)
"Border patrol officers referred a mother and father fleeing government threats in Venezuela for criminal prosecution for illegal entry and separated them from their fifteen-year-old daughter, who was sent into federal foster custody"(7).
"An asylum seeker severely persecuted in Mexico due to his sexual orientation was referred for criminal prosecution by CBP; during criminal proceedings, DOJ told his lawyers it would increase the recommended criminal sentence if he refused to waive his right to seek asylum."(8)
Other examples are also being reported by the ACLU(9).
Even if asylum seekers are not prosecuted for illegal entry, there is also the question of how asylum seekers are detained, and whether children should be separated from parents who are seeking asylum at all.
In 2015, Homeland Security established a committee to advise on family detention and and associated practices. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers (ACFRC), was established July 24, 2015. Its report was published on September 30, 2016.
The ICE's advisory committee recommended (all emphasis mine):
"Recommendation 1-1: DHS’s immigration enforcement practices should operationalize the presumption that detention is generally neither appropriate nor necessary for families – and that detention or the separation of families for purposes of immigration enforcement or management, or detention is never in the best interest of children . . .DHS should discontinue the general use of family detention, reserving it for rare cases when necessary following an individualized assessment of the need to detain because of danger or flight risk that cannot be mitigated by conditions of release. . ."(10)
"Recommendation 1-2: DHS should not use detention for the purpose of deterring future family migration or punishing families seeking asylum in the U.S. Any contrary policy is unlawful, and ineffective."(11)
"Recommendation 1-5: Children should not be separated from their parents in order to continue to detain the adults, or to continue to hold the children by placing them in ORR [Office of Refugee Resettlement] care"(12)
"Recommendation 1-6: To avoid inappropriate gender-based disparate treatment, and in keeping with the recommended criteria and conditions, the presumption of release together as a family should apply equally to mothers and fathers arriving with minor children, and neither fathers nor mothers should face separation from their minor children"(13)
"Recommendation 3-25: Threats of or actual separation of a parent and child should never be used as punishment or retaliation for exercising rights, nor as a means of discouraging the exercise of rights"(14)
There are more recommendations in the report. None of them are ambiguous or unclear.
Ultimately the argument being made is that the rule of law is an important principle and must be upheld. Entering the country without correct documentation is against the law. So family separation resulting from prosecution for that crime is an unfortunate consequence of upholding the law.
But prosecuting asylum seekers is also against the law, and there is evidence that government is doing exactly that.
Therefore, in accordance with the same principle of upholding the rule of law, that practice must end immediately.
Moreover, those who accept the separation of children from parents who enter the country illegally, for the sake of upholding the law, should also be calling for an immediate halt to the practice of prosecuting asylum seekers, for exactly the same reason.
That's not what I'm seeing.
I'm seeing people (including the AG) condemning violation of the law when it's politically convenient, but refusing to condemn violation of the law when it's politically inconvenient. That undercuts the central premise of the argument that this is about the rule of law. In fact it only undermines the rule of law.
But matters of law aside, the ICE's own advisory committee has made very clear recommendations about the detention of families and separation of children from asylum seekers. Current policies therefore represents a blatant disregard for the recommendations of subject matter experts, seemingly because those recommendations are politically inconvenient.
Whichever way you look at it, no one can reasonably argue in support of a practice based on their support for the rule of law, while at the same time accepting another practice that violates and undermines the same rule of law.
(3) https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … and-policy
(4) https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/atto … nt-actions
(5)(6)(7)(8)https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press- … ers-border
(9) https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-ri … um-seekers
(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/ac … mdOnly.pdf
Wait. It sounds like you're saying that if an illegal alien enters the country, promptly announces they are seeking refugee status, that our only legal option is to turn them loose to wander the country as they please.
In addition, you're saying that we may not separate illegal families from each other, but without giving any alternative other than turning them loose to wander the country as they please.
We all know there are hundreds of lawyers happy to coach illegal entrants in just how to claim refugee status, whether they are actual refugees from anything but poverty or not. Yet your claim is that are immediately to be granted legal status because they say "I'm seeking asylum". This is not something that any reasonable person will accept, and the rest of the world agrees - witness the "immigrant" camps across Europe as the rest of the UN begins to find out what unlimited immigration really means. No country is following that UN edict, and there is zero reason we should, either.
When you, or anyone else, has provided a reasonable alternative to separating families of lawbreakers (perhaps you will find one for American criminals as well?), then you can talk about not separating them. Until then all the cries that it must not be done are worthless.
Do you believe in upholding the rule of law or not?
If you do, that means actually upholding the law, not just upholding laws that are politically convenient, and ignoring those that are not.
If you don't like what federal law says, you are entitled to try to persuade Congress to change it (so is the President and the Attorney General).
If you don't like what international law says, you are entitled to ask government to try to persuade the UN members to change it, or even ask government to withdraw from the institution of the UN altogether.
Until any of those things happen, it remains illegal to prosecute asylum seekers, and the government should act accordingly. That is what upholding the law means.
What you can't reasonably do, is argue in support of a practice based on support for the rule of law, while at the same time accepting another practice that violates and undermines the rule of law.
All the while you do that, your cries about upholding the rule of law are worthless.
"Do you believe in upholding the rule of law or not?"
Which law? The one that says illegals cannot live here or the one from the UN that says they can if just mouth the word "refugee", while all other UN signatories ignore it?
Personally I'm not particularly fond of UN laws or regulations requiring socialistic attitudes be imposed on the US. That we signed it 70 years ago gives some credibility to it, but given the changing logistics worldwide (and worldwide refusal to follow it) not enough. US law prevails.
When it comes to separating families, do you have a (reasonable) suggestion, or do you find that we legally must allow them to live in the US while ignoring the laws on the matter?
Until such time the US withdraws from the institution of the United Nations, or rescinds its ratification of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and repeals the Refugee Act 1980, it is the law.
Whether you like that or not makes no difference to the fact that it's the law, and "upholding the law" therefore means upholding this law.
If you believe this law should be freely violated just because you don't like it, then how is that upholding the rule of law?
And the US law, in force since long before the UN resolution, should therefore be ignored rather than following the leadership of UN members and ignoring the UN law?
If you believe US law should be freely violated just because you don't like it, then how is that upholding the rule of law?
You didn't say - do you have any (legal) solutions for kids being deterred?
The US is a member of the United Nations and has ratified several UN conventions, including the one relating to refugees. Whether you (or the AG) likes it or not, UN conventions are legally binding.
And the principle is called: maintaining the rule of law. It is not called: maintaining the rule of law (except UN conventions we don't like even though we've ratified them).
Jeff Sessions said "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple". Well likewise, if you ratify a UN convention and violate that convention, you are breaking the law. It's that simple.
Again, you either believe in maintaining the rule of law or you don't. If you believe it's acceptable to prosecute asylum seekers, then you have no claim to the principle of maintaining the rule of law.
In terms of suggestions, can I give you a solution that fixes the whole issue of child immigration in a way that brings agreement from every political persuasion? Sadly, no. The ICE's own independent advisory committee made lots of recommendations for how families should be treated in relation to enforcement and immigration management though, so that would be a sensible place to start(1).
The overriding point is that using concern for the rule of law as justification for doing something that violates the rule of law, is a self-defeating position.
(1) https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/ac … mdOnly.pdf
But somehow you continue to ignore the simple fact that turning illegal aliens loose in the US is against the law. Many of them, for illegals cannot exist without disobeying additional laws.
This is exactly what your link does as well; the solution is simply to ignore US laws and turn illegal aliens loose to disobey further laws. It doesn't supply any more alternatives than that; let them disobey as they choose to.
And that does not support the concept of a "nation of laws", now does it?
But I didn't ask for a solution satisfactory to everyone of every political persuasion. I merely asked for one that makes you happy and is legal (under current US laws, not UN ones that not a single nation is actually following).
"Refugee" has a legal definition, both in US law and in international law. Everyone who crosses the border illegally has the status of "illegal alien". But some of those people will also meet the legal definition of "refugee", in which case any laws applicable to someone with refugee status apply.
This concept is not new.
"Prisoner of war" has a legal definition under the third Geneva Convention (another UN treaty the US has ratified, and is legally binding).
If a soldier, not in disguise, is captured within the zone of operations of a hostile army that has ratified the convention, they must be treated as a prisoner of war, and the rules of the Geneva Convention apply. In that case, it would be of violation of the law to shoot that soldier as a spy.
Likewise, if someone meeting the definition of "refugee" is captured illegally entering a country that has ratified the refugee convention, then they must be treated in accordance with the UN convention related to refugees. In that case, it would be a violation of the law to prosecute that refugee.
Obviously I don't make the laws. I'm not even defending them. I'm simply telling you that you can't reasonable claim maintaining the rule of law is justification for accepting actions that violate the rule of law. That undercuts your own argument.
The only reasonable response is to either admit you are happy for laws to be applied selectively based on whether you like them (that's not the rule of law). Or acknowledge that, even though you dislike it, prosecuting asylum seekers violates the law and therefore should be stopped immediately (that is the rule of law).
You either want to maintain the rule of law or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
Yes, I understand that. But there are several major problems with your concept of what the law is.
1. No other country is following the UN laws we are expected to follow. Why are we singled out?
2. No provision is made for the truly massive flood of illegals the US has faced in the past. Indeed, when other countries faced a similar problem is when the law began to be ignored by all.
3. The number of illegals has overwhelmed our legal, justice and immigration systems, but that does not mean those people are given a "bye" on following our laws.
4. There is a very large number of Americans willing to jeopardize their own careers (while making money doing it) by teaching illegals (not refugees) how to beat the system. Until that problem is addressed somehow it has opened a loophole that cannot be simply ignored. As GA points our, a very small percentage of illegals are truly refugees, yet they will ALL claim to be if it means remaining in the country.
On the other hand, if the UN wishes to cover the cost of housing thousands and thousands of families for years of court debates I'm sure the US can come up with the land to put them on...given time to do so.
Hi bud, I think if you check out my response to Don you will find that it is not so 'cut and dried' that we are violating that UN Article 31. I understand your perspective, but just wanted to offer a bit of support in the context that the claimed violation is not a fact, but an opinion.
Did figure it was that cut and dried. But my main point is that I'm having a hard time finding a reason to obey a UN law that no other country, after being flooded will illegal aliens like the US is, will follow themselves. Let them walk the walk after hundreds of thousands are entering their country yearly, and they've found a "kid loophole" like they have here.
But then I'm not particularly interested in what the UN - a puppet of European socialism IMO - has to say anyway.
I googled Jeff Session's law about zero tolerance for immigrants. Surprise, surprise, there is no such law. However, I found many citing of Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy. Here is the difference between a policy and a law in terms of legality:
"A policy is that which outlines what a government is going to do and what it can achieve for the society as a whole. “Policy” also means what a government does not intend to do. It also evolves the principles that are needed for achieving the goal. Policies are only documents and not law, but these policies can lead to new laws."
It's very interesting that morality, ethics, and family values are all touted by conservatives. When it comes to concern about taking a child from the mother's womb, they are against it, but taking a child from a mother's arms is O.K. They could care less once the child leaves the womb. I found many, many citings about their zero tolerance policy, but I think this one is the most complete. Please read this.
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-pol … questions/
Yes. That policy stems from a Presidential Memorandum issued April 6, 2018 titled "Ending Catch and Release"(1).
That memorandum in turn references Executive Order 13767, issued January 25, 2017 about immigration and border security(2). In that EO the Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to:
". . . immediately take all appropriate actions to ensure the detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending the outcome of their removal proceedings or their removal from the country to the extent permitted by law".
The AG is directed to: ". . . take all appropriate steps to establish prosecution guidelines and allocate appropriate resources to ensure that Federal prosecutors accord a high priority to prosecutions of offenses having a nexus to the southern border".
Note that the person who wrote the EO (obviously not the president) was smart enough to qualify with the statement "to the extent permitted by law". Contrast that with Jeff Sessions public comments that: "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you".
The actions needed to pursue the policy the AG suggests (e.g. prosecuting everyone including asylum seekers) would not be permitted by law. Those actions are very clearly prohibited by law.
I think in his eagerness to win favor, the AG may have overstepped the bounds of what the law permits, but I'd need to see the guidance he has issued in detail to know for sure.
(1) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … -security/
(2) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … rovements/
Don W: So the bottom line is Trump issued two executive orders mandating Homeland Security take the appropriate action in accordance with the law and that Sessions also take appropriate actions to establish prosecution guidelines (Zero Tolerance Policy) to ensure that Federal prosecutors accord a high priority to prosecutions of offenses having a nexus to the southern border".
It sounds to me like Trump could rescind his Executive Orders anytime he wanted to and that would take the teeth out of the Zero Tolerance Policy.
If this is true, this is nothing more than an inhumane way to deal with people who are seeking asylum from desperate conditions in their country. Further, it is also a way of blaming Obama for the whole mess, when if fact, he had nothing to do with it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Then stop giving these countries hundreds of millions in foreign aid to IMPROVE their multi- cultured population ; While they send us their unemployable , their jail releases , their gang members , thier illegal immigrants from other countries .OUR Federal government , our president by constitutional directive HAS that legal obligation to protect our borders .......right ?
ahorseback: Their countries are not sending them here. They are leaving and becoming refugees, because it is no longer safe for them to live in their country. I live in California. I don't know about where you live, but there are many companies employing migratory workers in all walks of life here. The average white man would not work for what they get paid or under the conditions they work, for washing cars, working in agriculture fields, working as house maids in hotels and motels, etc. If we did employ our own people, the cost of labor would increase greatly and that cost would be passed on to the consumer.
Protecting our borders and being inhumane for the sake of teaching these people a lesson are two different things. Those kids who have been separated from their parents don't have a chance in hell succeeding in this country on their own. Their lives and their parents lives have been ruined forever. Thank you President Trump for the Executive orders and Jeff Sessions, for quoting Christian scripture to justify you inhumane actions.
"The average white man would not work for what they get paid or under the conditions they work, for washing cars, working in agriculture fields, working as house maids in hotels and motels, etc."
Isn't it time to drop that tired, sad old lie? First, no one is talking about legal migratory workers and second it isn't just the bottom jobs that they are being filled by illegals.
"Those kids who have been separated from their parents don't have a chance in hell succeeding in this country on their own."
Nor should they. Being brought in illegally by their parents does not make them citizens and does not give them the right to be here. You want to play the blame game (without offering any alternatives yourself), blame the parents for they are the ones that did it. But it's all to easy to blame the man you hate for everything wrong, particularly when you don't have an answer yourself, isn't it? C'mon, PP - come up with an answer - any reasonable answer that does not simply turn them loose in the US.
Peoplepower73, Do you understand what your comment;
"The average white man would not work for what they get paid or under the conditions they work, for washing cars, working in agriculture fields, working as house maids in hotels and motels, etc." , says about your perspective?
I bet you can't be a racist either, because you have Black friends. Geesh.
Who's decision was it to illegally immigrate? Who placed those children at risk?
GA, if you had small children and was threatened with death after seeing others murdered around you, would you not choose to gamble on a successful border crossing. I mean damn! They risk being caught by border guards or they face certain death if they stay home. Don't tell me you'd stay there and make them pry your gun from your cold dead hand like some wacko right winger?
Or are you finally sliding off the right side of the fence?
You are right Randy, I would get out of there. But that doesn't mean my only choice is a country 1000s of miles away. Nor does it mean I must take my children through two or three other countries to get to another place for my kids.
I found a couple articles, (one directed at "expats"), that note there are safe cities and areas in Honduras. I would imagine the same could be found in Nicaragua. So if I have to get out of my area, I could probably find other - less dangerous to get to - safe areas within my own country, or at worst, a neighboring country.
My only point is that it is not an either or choice. It is not the U.S. or nothing. Which could say that these folks aren't just trying to escape violence or death, they are trying to get into America by choice - not necessity.
You may be correct about safe areas existing, but I'd think they would quickly be overrun by the population if things are so bad down there. I'll have to look into this more before declaring you wrong again.
Ha! I like that "wrong again" part Randy. A sense of humor is a good trait to have.
Actually, I am considered to have a very fine sense of humor, GA! As well as being very attractive in the process. Pick one....
I will stick with the sense of humor bud. You already proved you had that with your "wrong again" quip. I don't want to think about you proving you are attractive too. :-)
You're still ignoring the-- "WE give them millions to make it better THERE and they send their worst HERE "- point.
All that foreign aid is doing is enriching a few individual government extortionist leaders , They then send us their illegals ,criminals and poor . Why does it take more wealth resources and regulation in them becoming a Mexican citizen than an American citizen , Mexico requires more for immigration than America does ?
IF Americans work ethics are devolving , that's an American issue , not one for illegals , that's an old and negated argument .
All that foreign aid is doing is enriching a few individual government extortionist leaders , They then send us their illegals ,criminals and poor . Why does it take more wealth resources and regulation in immigrant applicants becoming a Mexican citizen than an American citizen , Mexico requires more for immigration than America does ? Want to see" inhumane "Peoplepower ? Take a look at how Mexico treats their illegals at the southern borders ,the indigenous in Guatemala ,and Honduras . Belize , El Salvador. IF Americans work ethics are devolving , that's an American issue , not one for illegals , that's an old and much negated argument .
A: All that foreign aid is doing is enriching a few individual government extortionist leaders , They then send us their illegals ,criminals and poor .
M: If you don't like the financial aid that is being sent there, tell your president. He is in charge now. Let's see if he fixes it. Again, they don't send anybody here, they come here under their own volition.
A: Why does it take more wealth resources and regulation in immigrant applicants becoming a Mexican citizen than an American citizen , Mexico requires more for immigration than America does ?
M: You'll have to ask them.
A: Want to see" inhumane "Peoplepower ? Take a look at how Mexico treats their illegals at the southern borders ,the indigenous in Guatemala ,and Honduras . Belize , El Salvador.
M: So then that justifies the Zero Tolerance Policy?
A: IF Americans work ethics are devolving , that's an American issue , not one for illegals , that's an old and much negated argument
M: You are right it is old, but it is not negated. We have a choice and we choose cheap labor and hard work over expenses labor and unions.
Peoplepower , You actually call that a response ? Can't begin to attack the issue of the entire and ongoing exorbitant costs of illegal immigration can you ? Or the constitutional directive that our borders must be protected by the executive office ? Or that the exploitation of a essentially a non- people ,and their children IN THE US by agricultural employers , sex trades , hospitality industry , drug running , gang activities ............is extensive , expensive and ongoing ?
Just go ahead , put that head back in the sand Peoplepower .
For sure. There is no legislative requirement for the president or AG to be doing what they are doing. No laws passed by Congress require government to violate international law in the way they currently appear to be.
While the Obama administration cannot be blamed for the whole mess, the Obama administration did expand the indefinite detention of families along the border. In 2015 a federal judge ordered the administration to stop detaining families indefinitely, as children were being held in "widespread deplorable conditions"(1)(2). Though I believe president Obama was a good president, I believe he got it wrong with that policy.
George Bush instigated the "zero tolerance" approach that Sessions has modelled his policy on though with "Operation Streamline"(3). The Obama administration continued it, and deserves criticism for doing so, and now the Trump administration is not only continuing it, but aggressively expanding it.
While looking at Operation Streamline I found a paper from 2015 called: "Prosecuting the Persecuted: How Operation Streamline and Expedited Removal Violate Article 31 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol"(4). This is the argument I've been making about Sessions' policy. Its conclusion is:
"Operation Streamline and Expedited Removal, separately and in tandem, violate Article 31 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. Operation Streamline penalizes asylum seekers first by imposing criminal sanctions and prison time for unauthorized entry".
The upshot is that, far from being based in any legislative necessity, the current policy is an expansion of previous administration policies, which in turn are a violation of the law. This undercuts the premise used to justify the policy, which is all about upholding the rule of law.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/d … uling.html
(2) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p … Ruling.pdf
(4) https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cg … text=blrlj
Hi there peoplepower73, I also don't like this new "separation policy" action, but, I don't think you are quite right that Pres. Trump rescinding his executive order would take the teeth out of the "Zero tolerance" policy.
As I see it, the legality of Session's order is valid, although it is being highly debated. I think the UN Article 31 qualification of "" ... restrictions on their movements other than those which are necessary in the interest of public health and public order;" *(my bolding), offers the "technicality" that can make the "Zero Tolerance" policy legal.
Even though I don't like this action, I keep having the recurring analogous thought that we might die of a disease because we won't stomach the cure.
You certainly brought a basket full of pertinent points Don, and I hope you don't feel short-changed if I dive in sans bathing suit; as in replying from recall of brief blurbs and and a quick double-check of some of those recall points.
I think most of your points are legitimately debatable. And not as an effort to dismiss your citations, but only to point out a bias; the perspective of your sources is certainly from a particular view.
For instance your first citation, which you say proves the illegality of our current policies ends with this; "...restrictions on their movements other than those which are necessary in the interest of public health and public order;" *(my bolding)
I think that contrary views could validly argue that "public health and order;" as has been affected by our recent-times flood of illegal immigrants, could be a legitimate reason for our current policies.
Although personally, I do not support separation policies as a first course of action, I can see the legitimacy of counter-arguments that would say sometimes, (considering the size of the problem), separation is the only recourse - due to physical detention limitations, or the intransigence of the problem. I do not support "catch and release," and I feel there is valid data showing the huge percentages of those "released" that don't abide the terms of their release by returning when required, to support my view on that policy.
The 1997 Flores order is frequently cited regarding our legal compliance requirements, (to which many of your citations would also point - I would guess), and here again I think there are validly arguable contrary views. The new, and newly expanded reception and detention centers, the housing of asylum seekers in hotels and motels during multiple-day hearings, and the fact that not all families are separated, could, I think, be pointed to as our efforts for compliance.
To your point about "prosecution," it is my understanding that the illegal immigrants may be charged with the crime upon detention, but the prosecution doesn't occur until after the asylum hearings process. I think this process does comply with ours, and international law - which is of course, contrary to your cited source's contention.
As a note, and as another has also mentioned, and, I think, contrary to your cited assertions; just claiming asylum is not a blank-check requisition for entry. I am certain you are as familiar with the category requirements for persecution to be a valid claim. Domestic abuse, poverty, or gang violence do not automatically fit those requirements. As what I recall reading indicates, those are frequent claims of reason, (it seems to particularly apply to the Honduran asylum seekers); hence the prosecution efforts following the asylum hearing process rather than preceding it.
Cutting to the basic issues, I agree with your referenced recommendations and internal policies, but, not following them does not mean non-compliance with our immigration laws, or Article 31. I believe, as distasteful as it is, the current separation policy, (remembering that it is selectively, not universally applied), is legally compliant.
Which brings us back to the original question; Which laws are okay to ignore? When the compliance rate for "catch and release" illegal immigrants seems to show it is a failed policy, and, when the required "fear of persecution" does not qualify for asylum, what other options do you suppose are available? Once again - as another has mentioned, should we be advocating refugee camps at our borders such as Europe is seeing?
Thanks for pointing out these alternative views.
I offer some counter-points.
1. I made no claim that it is illegal to restrict the movement of people crossing the border, I said it is illegal to prosecute them. In the text quoted, the term "in the interest of public health and public order" is used to qualify restriction of movement, not prosecution.
Note: There was a misquote, which I'm sure you would have picked up yourself on further reading. I only found it because your comment gave me cause to revisit the text. I thought the text used was a direct quote of Article 31. It was not. The author had paraphrased. The exact text of Article 31 is:
"1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
I have cross referenced this text with a scan of the original 1951 document found in a UN archive (click "certified true copy").
This does not change the substance of the point. In both the original text and the paraphrase of it, there is no exception that allows those claiming asylum to be prosecuted for illegal entry before their claim has been verified.
3. There is evidence that people claiming asylum are not just being charged, but are in fact being prosecuted for illegal entry before their claims of asylum have been verified:
"CBP officers refer, and DOJ often prosecutes, asylum seekers for illegal entry into or presence in the United States regardless of their intention to seek protection, and no federal district along the border has a policy of exempting asylum seekers from criminal prosecution.
CBP agents in sectors along the border indicated that they refer people for prosecution irrespective of their intention to seek asylum. It appears that prosecutors and judges do not take asylum into account when determining the charges or sentences for illegal entry or illegal reentry.
In the four federal court districts Human Rights First visited, not one U.S. Attorney’s Office had a policy of exempting asylum seekers from charges of illegal entry or illegal reentry, and only one was found to have dismissed cases because defendants intended to seek asylum, though this appeared to have occurred on an ad hoc basis, not as policy."(3)
Moreover, the current Attorney General has publicly stated his intention to prosecute (not merely charge) anyone who crosses the border unlawfully: "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple"(4).
Based on the text of Article 31, enacting that intention requires breaking the law.
4. I have not claimed seeking asylum is a "blank-check requisition for entry". I have pointed out that prosecuting people seeking asylum before their claim is verified is illegal. There is no (legal) issue with prosecuting someone for illegal entry after asylum claims have been checked. But evidence suggests asylum seekers are being prosecuted before that happens, which is against the law.
5. I did not claim that not following the ICE committee's recommendations represented non-compliance with our immigration laws. In fact I made a point of explicitly separating them from the legal issue: "But matters of law aside, the ICE's own advisory committee has made very clear recommendations . . ."(5)(emphasis mine)
6. It would be wonderful if I could solve the issue of illegal immigration here and now. Sadly I can't. What I can do though is show that some current immigration enforcement actions violate the law, which invalidates one of the core justifications some people are using for accepting those actions.
(1) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalIn … ugees.aspx
(2) https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/19 … h_V_2p.pdf
(3) https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/ … grants.pdf
(4) https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/atto … nt-actions
Once again you present an industrious and informative response Don. And also once again, my reply is less industriously researched.
It appears then that it is the prosecution - more than the detention, that is the point of non-compliance with both our, and international law - from your perspective. Even as I am sure, as you point out, there have been instances that are, or seem to be, contrary to claimed protocol, the few sources I recall checking, (which included both uscis.gov and pro-immigrant articles), all spoke of an asylum request interview as one of the first steps in the detention process.
There were descriptions of this asylum request process as ranging from an initial telephone interview, (which could be as long as a two hour interview), to an in-person interview with an immigration court judge. (this instance was where my previous mention of housing illegal immigrants in local hotels when the court asylum interview process took more than a single day, came from)
I am not speaking to the quality or "rightness" of these interviews, but only to the appearance that they are the first step in the process, (after the initial on-the-spot apprehension interview), that could lead to prosecution. It appears that, regardless of Sessions' statements, the standing and current protocol of the process that determines an illegal immigrant's status is that efforts to prosecute follow, not precede, an asylum request determination. The fact that there are current, (as in 2017), asylum requests that have been granted seems to illustrate that Session's statement logically included an inference that excluded approved, (as in legally legitimate), asylum request entrants.
At this point, I think we are back to one of the first points in my original comment. The detailed exclamations of both pro and con, of this issue, are debatable.
The pro-Sessions folks will argue, (as I have, although I am not pro-Sessions, nor am I pro-family separation), that the DOJ, and relevant departments, are in legal compliance. That the established, and current process does place asylum request status before prosecution determination. The anti-Sessions' action folks will point to examples that illustrate a contrary process - with a prosecution determination preceding, or not including, an asylum request determination - as you have done.
Judging from various sources that place granted asylum requests to be from as low as 10% to as high as 75%, it seems obvious that not every illegal immigrant is automatically prosecuted, (as drawn from Sessions' statement) - which I believe supports that, even with your listed exception examples, the process is as described by both government and pro-immigrant sources - an asylum requesting illegal entrant is not persecuted before, or without, an asylum request hearing,
I think that even granting the legitimacy of your examples, they can only indicate "bad actor" actions, not an over-all legal non-compliance of the law.
Your examples, such as the text of your citation #3 could be as damning as they appear, or they could also only show, (as I initially said), that illegal entrants are charged before their asylum requests are heard, but they only infer that they are prosecuted before a hearing. Not prove it.
I don't think I can be as optimistic in my appraisal of the situation as you.
Even if we take the charitable view that the situation is somehow all a big misunderstanding, or an isolated example of some bad actors, or a gap between policy and implementation, the Attorney General's further comments suggest otherwise.
Not only has he said that if you cross the border unlawfully you will be prosecuted, he has also said that if someone crosses the border with a child, that person will be charged with the crime of illegal entry, and the child separated from them ". . . as required by law"(1).
So the intended policy is clear. Everyone who crosses the border unlawfully will be prosecuted for that crime. If the person has a child, then the charge of illegal entry will be used as the reason to separate the child from their parent, as that is ". . . required by law".
So the issue is not just the premature prosecutions that have happened, or may happen. It's worse. Article 31 prohibits "penalties" being imposed on asylum seekers for illegal entry. Moreover it prohibits penalties imposed specifically because of illegal entry. As per Article 31:
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees"(2)(my emphasis).
I believe it would be unreasonable to suggest that charging an asylum seeker for crossing the border illegally (even before the matter of asylum has been settled) then using that charge to remove their child from them, is not a penalty.
And Jeff Sessions has made clear that this penalty is being imposed on all illegal entrants, even those seeking asylum, specifically because they have crossed the border illegally.
"If you don't want your child to be separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally."(3)
"We don’t want to separate families, but we don’t want families to enter the border illegally"(4)
So asylum seekers with children who cross the border illegally are, in fact, being penalized "on account of their illegal entry or presence".
That is illegal.
Due to the level of scrutiny this issue is now getting, I think it's likely more evidence will come to light showing that people are being prosecuted before their asylum claims have been settled.
But even if that's not the case, penalizing asylum seekers with children, for crossing the border illegally, by charging them and removing their children, is itself illegal.
And the reason Jeff Session cites for doing this?
"We need legality and integrity in the system"(5)
That's something on which I and Mr. Sessions both agree.
(1) https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/atto … nt-actions
(2) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalIn … ugees.aspx
(3) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/07/poli … index.html
(4) http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/ … 4552540a97
(5) https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/atto … nt-actions
Today, Trump said, the U.S. will not be a migrant camp and a refugee holding facility They are not migrant camps, they are almost concentration camps. Notice I said almost concentration camps. So don't all get your knickers in a bunch! Trump also announced again that the press is the enemy of the people. That is really why I created this forum. It is for that one mantra he keeps stating about the press.
And some republican cronies are making big bucks re-using the old Walmart stores for these camps. Today Kirstjen Neilsen couldn't answer the query by a reporter as to where the young girls were being kept. Like Don, I see this as bending the law to hold the children hostage until he gets his damn wall. As long as it's not HIS kids he simply doesn't give a big dog f**k! What a wonderful inhuman being we have for our children's role model!
Don, I am going to bow out after this because I feel I am painting myself into a corner of appearing to defend this separation of families issue - I don't.
First it appeared that the claimed illegal action was the separation and detention. Then it turned to the illegal action being the prosecution, and now it appears that the illegality is the imposition of a penalty.
What I am defending is the contention that the current policy is blatantly illegal. I believe that there is room for argument that it is legal, as being interpreted.
I believe the wording of Article 31 does allow such an interpretation. For instance; from your quoted material; '... coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened...". Of the illegal immigrants involved in this issue, they are not coming directly from that persecuting area, they are at least one, if not two or three countries away from it. Mexico is not where their fear of persecution derives, but it is the "area" they are coming directly from. Which may go to my earlier mention that their determination to illegally enter the U.S. is not primarily to flee persecution - fleeing into Mexico accomplished that, but a choice of a place they would like to live. And that choice is not a persecution-driven one. *[my bolding]
And, I am undecided whether this point is just nit-picky, but all USCIS refugee asylum information, (as well as information posted by pro-immigration sources), that I did read, speak of entry, (still illegal), through a port-of-entry, not just any place along the border. I mention this with that recently publicized South American refugee caravan in mind. They did proceed to a port-of-entry, rather than just an illegal border crossing, and I don't recall news stories of them being involved in this family separation issue. They may have, but mostly what I recall is their complaints that the port-of-entry wasn't capable of handling their volume - in an immediate sense.
If these Hondurans have travel thousands of miles already, is it unrealistic to wonder why they didn't make their end goal a port-of-entry? I am not standing on this point, but it is a thought.
Secondly, and also from your quoted Article 31 text, is the qualifier of "... shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary..." *[again, my bolding] That is a pretty broad qualifier, one which I think can be validly argued with multiple rationalizations.
And lastly, as previously mentioned, asylum requests are being approved. Regardless of Sessions' statements and intent, not every illegal entrant is being prosecuted for illegal entry into our country. Which I think by the fact of occurrence disproves Sessions' statements and proves the truth of the asylum request process preceding actual prosecution. Couple that with the recent DHS statements that at the legally mandated 20-days maximum holding time for juveniles, they are being reunited with family members - where possible, and I think there is room for a determination that the protocols and processes currently in place are following the law. Again, both ours and international law.
None of that negates the stinkiness of this new enforcement policy, but that isn't what I have been discussing. I will leave that part for other Trump-specific commentators.
G.A , Don W , I've the answer to both of you . Just yesterday Hillary said ........I repeat .......Hillary said ....."Jesus said , Suffer the children unto me ...........Now you guys have gone and made this all political ?
Shame on you.
For what it's worth I don't think you come across as a Trump defender, just someone who is exploring the legality of current immigration enforcement actions, as am I, although I think you're probably more right-leaning on this specific issue than I am, and I'm probably more left leaning on it than you are.
As a parting comment, I think it would be worth summarizing the issue, because there are lots of moving parts so I'd like to simplify it if possible.
Before I do that, I think it's important to respond to the issue you raise about ". . . coming directly from a territory . . . "
This phrase does not refer to those who have transited through other countries. It refers to people who have settled in another country, or can't find effective protection. See the conclusion of an expert roundtable organized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2001, which concluded:
"Article 31(1) was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection in the first country or countries to which they flee. The drafters only intended that immunity from penalty should not apply to refugees who found asylum, or who were settled, temporarily or permanently, in another country. The mere fact of UNHCR being operational in a certain country should not be used as a decisive argument for the availability of effective protection in that country.
(d) The intention of the asylum seeker to reach a particular country of destination, for instance for family reunification purposes, is a factor to be taken into account when assessing whether s/he transited through or stayed in another country."(1)
I hope that clarifies the issue.
To summarize the current situation:
Points of Entry
Asylum seekers are not required, under Article 31 to report to a legal port of entry. The whole point of Article 31 is to protect those who don't enter the country legally from being penalized for it.
So while it's true that some asylum seekers have presented themselves at legal ports of entry, there is no obligation on asylum seekers to do so.
The only obligation is to ". . . present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence"(2).
If you would like a definition of "good cause" within the context of Article 31, I'd be happy to provide it.
Immigration and Nationality Act
Under Section 208 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act there is no obligation to report to a legal point of entry to claim asylum:
"(1)In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b)."(3)(my emphasis)
The "zero tolerance" policy
As outlined by the Attorney General, this policy means that everyone who enters the country illegally is charged with the crime of illegal entry, regardless of whether they are an asylum seeker or not. This is affecting different groups of immigrants in different ways, which contravene Article 31:
Effect on All Asylum Seekers
Premature prosecutions: there is evidence that some people are being prosecuted for illegal entry either without being given the opportunity to formally claim asylum, or before their claims for asylum have been settled.
There are a number of reasons why this might be the case. It could be because of misunderstandings between local enforcement and other agencies; isolated bad actors; or a deliberate attempt to prosecute and deport people before they can claim asylum. Whatever the reason, it contravenes Article 31 and is therefore illegal.
I agree it would be useful if there were further evidence of specific cases where this has happened.
Effect on Asylum Seekers with children:
Charging asylum seekers with the crime of illegal entry (even though they are not obliged to enter the country legally to claim asylum) means they are technically being held in custody awaiting prosecution for a crime.
This allows the authorities to remove their children from them. That's what Jeff Sessions means when he says children are being removed ". . . as the law requires", i.e. because their parents are being detained for a crime and are awaiting prosecution.
This practice effectively penalizes asylum seekers purely for illegal entry, which is a contravention of Article 31.
And to preempt another objection, "penalty" in this context, is not restricted to a legal penalty. The same roundtable referenced above concluded: "(h) The term ‘penalties’ includes, but is not necessarily limited to, prosecution, fine, and imprisonment."(my emphasis)
There is no legal reason at all for asylum seekers to be charged with illegal entry before their claims for asylum have been settled. In fact, if their claim is approved, they cannot be prosecuted for illegal entry, as that itself would be illegal.
So why is this happening? Because detaining someone while they await prosecution for a crime provides legal cover for taking their children away, which serves as a deterrent to others considering illegal entry. That is the stated purpose of the policy (see previous references to current Administration comments). However, this practice equates to penalizing asylum seekers for illegal entry, and therefore contravenes Article 31.
I'm all for reasonable interpretation, but . . .
Based on the text of Article 31 and the Immigration and Nationality Act, there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that an asylum seeker is obliged to enter a country at a legal point of entry.
Based on the stated intentions of the authors, and previous interpretations of Article 31, there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that transiting another country excludes someone from the protections within Article 31.
Based on the text of Article 31, and our common traditions and values, there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that charging an asylum seeker with a crime and removing their children due to that crime, is not a penalty.
Based on the publicly stated intentions of the Attorney General and others in the current Administration, there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that this penalty is not being imposed on asylum seekers specifically because they did not enter the country legally.
Based on the text of Article 31 and other relevant legislation there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that prosecuting asylum seekers before their asylum claim is settled, is legal.
Based on the text of Article 31 and other relevant legislation there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude penalizing asylum seekers by charging them with illegal entry before their asylum claim is settled, and removing their children as a result of that charge, is legal.
I believe an interpretation that suggests the current practice is legal, is borne out of lack of knowledge of the applicable statutes and/ or relevant definitions and meanings. For us, as laypeople, such lack of knowledge is forgivable. In relation to the Attorney General there are two possibilities. Either he has the same lack of knowledge, or he possesses that knowledge but chooses to disregard it. For an Attorney General, neither of those possibilities is forgivable.
(3) https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB … #0-0-0-192
Don W: I am really impressed with your analysis of those three documents. I perused all three of them and I don't see how you were able to glean and summarize the essence of those constructs. If you don't mind me asking, what did you do for a living?
I'm just keeping this simple for my own understanding.
1. It appears to me, these people have been on a long trek from Central American countries because they are seeking refuge from drug lords and other bad actors who make their lives unlivable in their countries.
2. Trump and company have known about these caravans for a long time as they moved from one country to another to get here. Why didn't they inform those people of their policies by using pamphlets and other means in their own language, so they would have an idea of what to expect before arriving here?
3. Trump now calls his policy a deterrent. He is using jailing parents and detaining children to teach others a lesson to not to try the same thing.
4. Based on your analysis, it is illegal to jail the parents before they have claimed they are seeking asylum. However, that is what they are doing in most cases
5. Sessions says by virtue of his policy, he will prosecute those who have smuggled their children into our country. But doesn't he have to prove they were smuggled and because his policy is not law, it is illegal for him to prosecute those people based on his policy?
6. By jailing the parents, that allows the DHS law to kick in that states, if the parents are jailed, the kids are detained...but for how long?
7. To end this fiasco, all Trump has to do is not jail the parents and deport everybody back across the border. Or can he change the DHS law that says jail the parents?
8. He and Sessions want to blame the democrats for a policy they both created.
"To end this fiasco, all Trump has to do is not jail the parents and deport everybody back across the border."
Not jail the parents. What else can he do? What is your suggestion, outside of simply turning them loose (against the law for obvious reasons)?
ahorseback: He can change the policy. Instead of just jailing the parents because they crossed the border, he can have them apply for asylum to prove they are indeed refugees. In that way they would not be subject to the DHS system. If they don't qualify, then deport them and explain why they are being deported. Deportation of families is much more humane than splitting them up in foreign country.
Let's face it, you know it and I know it, all Trump and Sessions wants to do is make an example of these people to deter others from crossing the border. In Trump's words: "Dems want 'illegal immigrants' to infest our country. Your president is so low life, he can't even admit when his own policy is causing the problem. He has to always blame others for his mistakes. I suppose if he pushed the button, he would blame it on democrats.
What did I do for a living? I still have some decades before I reach retirement age unfortunately, but at least I work for myself now. I won't disclose what I used to do as it's a bit sensitive, but I am not, and have never been, a legal professional.
Just to clarify some points.
The movement of an asylum seeker can be restricted under Article 31 as is "necessary". The issue is that detaining asylum seekers for illegal entry penalizes them, especially if they have children who are taken away from them as a result. That is prohibited under Article 31.
When Sessions talks about "smuggling" children, he just means crossing the border illegally with a child. Smuggling is the technical term. It also sounds more dramatic and "illegal" to those not used that terminology.
Yes, the policy to immediately charge everyone who crosses the border illegally (which is what they are using as legal cover to remove children from parents) can be stopped at any time. That policy increases the risk that local or federal authorities may themselves break the law, but more importantly it increases the risk that vulnerable people (including children) may be excluded from protections that have been established in law for decades.
Don, you are really working me here bud. In formulating this response, for a brief period, you almost had me maneuvered into adopting your citation method, (oh gawwddd, not another link war), but in referencing some of your points, it appeared that I would be referring to citations you have already made. So, even though my stubbornness won't allow me to just let this go, I will hold my course and try not to appear to be just bull-headed about it.
As I mentioned, that port-of-entry thing was just a thought, and as I discovered in that Section 208, (which I returned to find as one of your citations), I found I was right not to stand on that point - it was not a valid one.
This discussion has been informative, and you have well-supported your contentions, but ...
I will also summarize the point I have been making; which is that I think a valid argument could be made that our current illegal entry policy, (detestable as it is), is in compliance with both U.S. and International, (Article 31), law.
If I were to be an impartial judge making that determination, and besides just being impartial, but also wearing that important blindfold of Lady Justice, I would have to give consideration to the following arguments;
The Article 31 inclusion of "...shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary..." *[again, my bolding] leaves the definition of "necessary" open to almost any interpretation of justification. Even though that sounds a lot like Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of "is" is", I would still have to entertain that there could be valid justifying interpretations, ie. the detentions.
And regarding the charging of a crime, (the illegal entry) - before an asylum request determination, being a penalty.. appearances are that there is no proof that actual prosecution before determination is the norm, rather than an aberration, so here too, as that judge, I would have to consider arguments that some rationalization falling under that umbrella of "necessary" could be possible.
Remember now, I am a blind arbiter of pertinent actions, I feel I cannot consider Sessions' statements - because the facts of the actual act of processing and granting asylum requests belie his statements.
To the point about "coming directly from," and addressing your round table of experts text, I think the connecting "or";"...briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection..." could prompt an arguable point of whether such protection was found in the first country their travels entered. Is there proof that Mexico would not have offered that protection? If not, then doesn't their flight for safety then become a secondary purpose? Could it be argued that the "briefly transited" aspect of that statement, when followed by the "unable to find" part indicates the "briefly transited" condition referred to travels through a state as equally persecution-liable as their departure state? I think that is arguable to the point of questioning the validity of the "refugee" status that is the object of Article 31, and our own Refugee Act law.
I think that the final point of that Round Table text; regarding family reunification also addresses the above point. Why was that included as a conditional separator of one type of "transit" over another, (non-family reunification motive)? It almost seems as if that could be a second "or" in their first statement; "... .briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection, or, are transiting to a destination for purposes of family reunification.
As that impartial judge, I understand some of those arguments may seem a stretch, but I could not consider them completely without foundation. And that has been my contention throughout this discussion. I think a sharp legal mind could produce a validly arguable defense that the current DHS policy is technically legal.
Now, let me dump that blindfold and address a bit of your "Reasonable Interpretation" conclusion.
"... there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that an asylum seeker is obliged to enter a country at a legal point of entry." I agree.
"... there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that transiting another country excludes someone from the protections within Article 31." As you read above, I think there are possible grounds for disagreement here.
"... our common traditions and values, there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that charging an asylum seeker with a crime and removing their children due to that crime, is not a penalty." I completely agree.
"Based on the publicly stated intentions of the Attorney General and others in the current Administration, there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that this penalty is not being imposed ..."I agree here also
"...there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude that prosecuting asylum seekers before their asylum claim is settled, is legal. " I agree with this also, but have not seen proof that this is the current policy - only your anecdotal examples of inferences.
"...there is no reasonable interpretation that would allow someone to conclude penalizing asylum seekers by charging them with illegal entry before their asylum claim is settled, and removing their children as a result of that charge, is legal." This seems almost redundant to the latter two interpretations. I could agree if you had used "right" instead of "legal." As noted, I still think arguments could be made about the legality, but I can certainly agree that no reasonable interpretation would find such action "right."
" I believe an interpretation that suggests the current practice is legal, is borne out of lack of knowledge of the applicable statutes and/ or relevant definitions and meanings...." Of course I have to agree with this one. I most probably do fall into that layperson that lacks knowledge category.
*I purposely excluded the latter part of that "Reasonable Interpretation" because I believe your inference is an opinion, not fact. And that is what this whole discussion has been about.
I'll leave my last post as the main thrust of my thoughts on the subject, as I already feel I've pulled you back in just as you were making good your escape.
I'm drawn back myself because you have, and do, raise some cogent points, but I'll just focus on two:
To be clear, drawing from references already cited, I think restricting the movements of asylum seekers for administrative purposes while assessing an asylum claim, would be permissible under Article 31. Likewise I think authorities could probably argue successfully for detention on the basis of public order.
But if you charge someone with illegal entry and detain them as a result of that charge, before any claim of asylum has even been assessed, then you run afoul of Article 31, because that constitutes penalizing an asylum seeker specifically for illegal entry, even more so if their children are removed from them in the process. It's the combination of penalty and the cause being illegal entry, that creates the violation.
In reference to " . . . coming directly from", I think the "or" works in favor of the asylum seeker in the sentence: ". . . briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection". An "and" may have been more problematic for the reasons you mention, but as it is, the passage suggests Article 31 was intended to apply to asylum seekers who fall into one of those categories, not both. I think most of the current asylum seekers from Central America almost certainly fall into the first category, if not the second, so based on that round table conclusion, Article 31 should apply to them.
Addressing your concluding points is an easier task Don, because your efforts forced me to look deeper than I originally had, and they were fruitful.
I perused the documentation of that expert's Round Table, which in turn led me to a couple more original documents, and one particularly sensible paper by a Professor Goodwin-Gill, Professor of International Refugee Law, University of Oxford
The result of this effort is that I now agree that the initial charging of a crime does pose a penalty, (a violation of Article 31) - regardless of where in the process the actual act of prosecution takes place. Ironically, the cause for this change in perspective also seems to give support to a contention that the current policy of detention and separation could easily have been within the mandate of Article 31 - if they had just left out the criminal charge as the first step.
As noted from the paper mentioned, many states also use detention, and various detention facilities:
"3. Increasingly, the practice among receiving countries is to set up special detention or holding entres, for example, in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States; such facilities may be open, semi-open or closed. Because of Article demand, many States also employ regular jails for the purposes of immigration related detention; in such cases, asylum seekers are generally subject to the same regime as other prisoners and are not segregated from criminals or other offenders.
Now I think that legally, this administration shot themselves in the foot with that act of macho bluster.
But your second conclusion, regarding that "direct transit" "or," is still worrying me. Your point about if it had been an "and" instead of an "or" was a thought I also originally considered. In my puzzling for an interpretation I wondered about the logic of ignoring the reality of safety being acquired in the first country, and the illogical accepting of an asylum request when the requester is no longer coming from a country that is or would persecute them. In short, they have accomplished their escape from fear of persecution, and are now trying to accomplish a desire of location - which I believe does not qualify for a valid reason for asylum.
It appears the drafters, as well as multiple state representatives, (France, in particular, the UK being also in agreement), to the convention also had these same thoughts.
Part of my logic comes from paragraph "e" which directly followed your quoted Round Table excerpts:
"(e) Having a well-founded fear of persecution is recognized in itself as ‘good cause’ for illegal entry. To ‘come directly’ from such country via another country or countries in which s/he is at risk or in which generally no protection is available, is also accepted as ‘good cause’ for Illegal entry There may, in addition, be other factual circumstances which constitute ‘good cause’."
I note that this excerpt finds it pertinent to include a qualifier about the asylum seeker not finding protection in their first country of transit. Why was that necessary if the thought of "brief transit" had no more conditions than just being a route to a destination country?
A second prod came from the Professor's paper;
"12. So far as the references in Article 31(1) to refugees who ‘come directly’ and show ‘good cause’ may be ambiguous, the travaux préparatoires illustrate that these terms were not intended to deny protection to persons in analogous situations. On the contrary, the drafting history of Article 31(1) shows clearly only a small move from an ‘open’ provision on immunity (benefiting the refugee who presents him- or herself without delay and shows ‘good cause’), to one of slightly more limited scope, incorporating references to refugees ‘coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened’. Moreover, the drafting history shows clearly that this revision was intended specifically to meet one particular concern of the French delegation."
It seems the drafters were aware of the problem with the ambiguity of their wording.
In the AD Hoc Committee of the 1951 Convention discussions, France brought up a point that might be analogous to a "first country of safety" thought that would pertain to that "brief transit" definition:
"18. In clarifying his country’s position, the French Delegate gave the example of ‘a refugee who, having found asylum in France, tried to make his way unlawfully into Belgium. It was obviously impossible for the Belgian Government to acquiesce in that illegal entry, since the life and liberty of the refugee would be in no way in danger at the time’."
The text is unclear as to whether "found asylum" is meant as found official asylum, or found safety from persecution. I don't hold this excerpt as conclusive to my point, but it does seem to indicate a concern about the meaning of the "directly from" and "brief transit" wording.
I will hold onto my thoughts about that "brief transit" determination for now, but I think we have carried this discussion to a fair ending. We both gained.
Don W and GA: The article 31 you have been citing is from The United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. Trump just withdrew our membership from the UN Human Rights Council. Do you think Article 31 still applies to the treatment of refugees as a result of that withdrawal?
I don't think this withdrawal impacts our signatory status relative to Article 31. I haven't looked into it, but I don't believe one has anything to do with the other.
Unfortunately for me, given the current anti-Trump atmosphere here, I must once again bear the appearance of defending Pres. Trump, because I do support this action of withdrawal.
The Human Rights Council is 12 years old - we joined in 2009. I have noted UNHRC, (United Nations Human Rights Council), controversies in the past, and with just a shallow dive; regarding their membership, (lots of human Rights abusing states), and politicization, you will find a lot to not like.
This Brookings' article of a ten-year review speech will give you an idea what to look for if you are interested in forming an opinion of whether our withdrawal is the abomination it is being portrayed as.
Ten years later: The status of the U.N. Human Rights Council
As GA has said, one has nothing to do with the other.
But there's nothing to say Donald Trump will not try to unilaterally withdraw from the Convention. I wouldn't discount it.
In terms of the UNHRC, the withdrawal was not a surprise. If previous criticism is anything to go by, the administration has been telegraphing this for a while now (I think that was always the plan, but the UNHRC's recent criticism of the administration on the immigration issue may have influenced the timing).
Personally I think it's a bad idea. The Commission has many flaws, but I think the way to address that is through engagement and perseverance, not withdrawal and isolation.
Don W: After reading GA's article, I've come to the conclusion that Trump has withdrawn from the UNHRC for two main reasons: (1) He doesn't want to be criticized by the Commission for his Zero Tolerance Policy and (2) because of the negative treatment the Commission has given to Israel. As soon as Trump made the announcement, Netanyahu praised Trump for his courage in dropping out of the council.
" A house divided against itself cannot stand " amazing that you bring that up right after the most divisive[and expensive ] president to enter the White House leaves office , Pres. Obama !
Oh , that's right .....that's history , it doesn't count right ?
A: " A house divided against itself cannot stand " amazing that you bring that up right after the most divisive[and expensive ] president to enter the White House leaves office , Pres. Obama !
Oh , that's right .....that's history , it doesn't count right ?
M: It doesn't count unless you can conclusively prove otherwise. If you can't then, it is merely your opinion. How much do you think this 18 months of IG investigations cost us to prove Trump was wrong about Comey, the FBI, Obama, and Hillary?...Of course, you, Trump, and all of his supporters won't accept the findings. Fox News will also put a spin on it to discredit the IG's efforts and findings.
The "cost "incurred for this so called investigation is ALL on the democrats , if the alleged charges against Trump are so relevant , there should be multiple charges against Hilllary and Obama and both their crews . Your understanding of or your ignoring the political history of your party is the real problem . So if "Proof " is the requirement for your obstruction based ideology . You must have lots of it hidden away waiting for the right moment in time ?
Yes , the" house divided " is here , congratulations , It was your party , your divisiveness and the cost of that ; Your party is dying a slow death right now but of course you already know that , when even as half of liberals leave for greener grass , shallow commitments that they do have , it will only worsen for 2018 ,2020 ,2022 , but especially 2024.
ahorseback: Who do you think ordered the investigation? It was Trump. Now things didn't go his way and like I said before you, he, fox news and their cohorts won't accept it. I'm going to tell you what I have been told by you people. You lost...get over it. But Trump won't because he is a spoiled brat child.
Not only that but now you are trying to put the blame on the democrats, even though they are out of power. I knew you would never give any proof, because you can't. It is only what you have heard and your opinion.
Our party is not dying a slow death. It is dying a quick death, thanks to the conservative republican game plan that has been beautifully executed through all these years with all the funding by the elites at the top of your party broadcasting propaganda to the voters at the bottom of your party.
The people at the bottom are so brainwashed, they don't even know that they have voted through all these years against their own best interest. My concern is not only is our party dying a quick death, but so is more than half of this country...and this will continue into the future.
Congratulations on a great job. I have to admit that conservatives are much better at organizing and attacking than the liberals. It is not in our nature and our DNA, but it most certainly is in conservatives souls.
In the meantime, Spanky's cronies are being slowly indicted all around him. Flynn, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Cohen are just among the many soon to be flipping like a high board diver. Wonder who'll they turn on?
To the brilliance of some here , One would think that Trump not only created the laws that he is now constitutionally enforcing but has decided to actually separate the kids from their "parents " to protect who , the other inmates of detention centers ? Why separate them at all ? Because you don't throw infants in cells with drug dealers , gang members and psychopaths.
But people here what , know batter what to do with them ?
One more reason to actually hold Obama accountable for something ?
Shush! We're not allowed to discuss alternatives to detaining those kids. So far, I haven't seen a single suggestion from the left, outside of providing apartment style living arrangements for illegals at our cost, and there is a very good reason for that - if a reasonable alternative is found it means they can't pound on Trump for enforcing the law.
So just keep quiet and don't ask for alternative suggestions. I upsets the lefties.
Apparently there are no recent graphs showing the percentages of immigrants from different countries. I wonder why they stopped making them since 2005? Or is it simply the latest graphs don't give the desired effect some want? I'd bet on the latter since a Spanky fan is using the old graph. Trumping it, in other words.
Trump should win some kind of an award.
I offer the Darwin Award, more often off themselves by way of the most stupid actions they do. My vote goes to Trump, for a lifetime achievement award.
In an interview a few moments ago the head of ICE said they were removing children from their parents due to a misdemeanor committed by their parents. The same penalty as being publicly drunk and having your children taken away from you because of it.
Asked twice by Wolf Blitzer if this was humane, he declined to answer either time while looking extremely pained. If the head of the ICE forces refuses to answer if the way they're treating these people is humane, then this says a lot about our officials. Thankfully this dude is retiring very soon. I don't blame him as he has Spanky Stench on him. Something which will never wash off.
Crossing the border is a misdemeanor as the head of ICE admitted today. They are taking children away from parents for a stupid misdemeanor. Imagine jaywalking and having your kids taken away. Stupid BS!
What do you think will happen when you commit the same misdemeanor every day, with the stated objective of doing it for the rest of your life? Along with committing more serious crimes every day as well (working a job illegally, failure to file taxes, failure to pay taxes, identity theft, driving without a license, etc.)? Imagine doing that and making that statement and expecting nothing to be done!
Pretty stupid to think we're allowed to do such things, isn't it?
I said I was through with you, Dan. I'm not interested in what you think. Don't address me and I surely won't address you. Too much trouble to get an answer from you..
All ya have to do is answer questions - that's what makes a discussion. But I'm tired of answering yours only to have you refuse to answer mine - only after I get an answer will I return one, and have been doing that for a while.
But that's fine, Randy - I won't respond again if you don't wish to discuss issues.
The more that Trump drops the entire US out of these worthlessly P.C. organizations the better for us all , Next on the list , Hopefully our expensive and mindlessly ignorant membership in the U.N. ?
Trump being two face with UN right now.
If Trump can be nominated for Nobel Peace prize, then anyone can. Trump who is bombing eight countries. A man who defended some white-nationalist marchers as "very fine people," implored a crowd at a campaign rally to "knock the crap out" of protesters, and threatened nuclear annihilation against North Korea . He has no war on with poverty, homeless or natural environment. He is a probable every good as a contender for a Nobel Peace Prize as Obama was.
Don't forget the Zero Tolerance Policy where the kids are separated from their parents. How is that going to play in Oslo Norway?
Castle , Unlike most , I have absolutely ZERO respect for a foundation that would nominate a new president for doing nothing , the Nobel used to mean something . But as much of the politically correct world knows , The Obama era changed all that . ...... Talk about a guy who bombed eight nations !
Peoplepower , I'm pretty sure Trump cares NOT about a worthless medal , we both also know he doesn't need the money , he'd just donate it like he did his salary to the soldiers or some other cause , Did Obama ever donate anything ?
I know they always needed a dictionary give interpretation of words from the bible. For many words like fear, actually means respect. Magic means evil or miracle mean Supernatural and so on.
It time to have a dictionary for politicans words, like peace means hire more phycopaths and dropping more bomb's. Nuclear bombs means peace makers.
Or they are welcome to their own personal hell.
No but seriously, they didn't give Mr. Trump that big prize yet did they? Think this might adversely affect the scheduling of Donald's big celebration day? No big deal anyway, he probably would have just melted it down and sold it for scrap to pay off debts:
"North Korea upgrades nuclear facility despite Trump-Kim summit, satellite images show"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor … 741015002/
Jack: Yep, Reagan was a great leader. He created the Savings and Loan Debacle, the Iran Contra Affair, and Trickle Down Economics. His economic policies didn't trickle down, they streamed upward and sideways to unnumbered Swiss accounts and to the Cayman Islands. David Stockman who was Reagan's Budget Director called it Voodoo economics.
If you actually lived through that period, you would know that what I mentioned is true. Reagan has been sanctified by the right by people who were never even old enough or alive during that period, especially Sean Hannity.
PP , that response is full of ideological bias and that's all , The new Senate Left under Bush #1 blew the entire Reagan economic gains inside of one to two years , And then what happened ? Clintonomics .
Reaganomics worked and was working well , except in the minds of you rewriters of political history . ........Ya I was there too ! After Jimmy Carter -Almost Anyone could have done a much better job !
Fact: Savings and Loan Debacle
Fact: Iran/Contra Affair
Fact: Voodoo Economics
Fact: Clinton was one of the only presidents to have a budget surplus.
Your" facts " lack any importance at all in comparison to how illegal your Obama administration was , Or the Clintons for that matter. Clinton regime enjoyed fully the Reaganomics surpluses and corporate growth . Given the illegalities of those two alone ,anyone should love Trump .
ahorseback: How nice of you to judge history facts with just your biased opinion with no facts to back them up and your false equivalence of your "illegality of Obama and Clinton" should make me love Trump. Here are some history lessons for you. Oh I know you won't read them, but maybe others might.
Savings and Loan Debacle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opin … ugman.html
https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down … rk-3305572
So you're just proving my point Peoplepower , You post these "facts " from where , The news media ? Yet your opinion is truth and others are not Why ? Because you or your biased media put a little word in front of them , -"fact " ? And another word in front of others "lies " , please .......Like I said , I was there too , your still re-writing that history book huh ?
ahorseback: I'm not re-writing anything, these are facts, not my opinion. If you "were there" during this time, you should be able to answer these questions
Did the Savings and Loan Debacle occur because Reagan deregulated the financial markets? Yes or no
Did it create the worst meltdown since the '29 crash? Yes or no
Did it take years to recover from that meltdown? Yes or no
Did Oliver North and Reagan violate the Boland Ammedment by selling arms to Iran, to fund the Communist Sandinista government to fight the Contra's Yes or no
Was Oliver North running a shadow government apart from congress? Yes or no
Did Reagan's trickle down economics cause more money to flow down to the middle class or to the super-rich at the top? Choose one
Did Clinton balance the budget? Yes or no
a: So you're just proving my point Peoplepower , You post these "facts " from where , The news media ? Yet your opinion is truth and others are not Why ? Because you or your biased media put a little word in front of them , -"fact " ? And another word in front of others "lies " , please .......Like I said , I was there too , your still re-writing that history book huh ?
M: Speaking of lying, your president lies and exaggerates everyday. He has more positions than the Kama Sutra. But that is O.K. with you because he is going to make America great again. He even calls the media the enemy of the people...sounds like a dictator to me!
That all sounds like a very bad nightmare Peoplepower , time to wake up , there are no boggy men under your bed . ......you're make far too , too many unrelated "connections ".
Peoplepower is part of the swamp in DC. He worked in our government his whole career. He knows no better solution. Give him a break...
Jack: I hope you are right about Trump. Because if you are not, you will have no one to blame but your own tribe. By this time next year, you won't be able to blame the democrats and Obama. Trump and the GOP will own it all.
ahorseback: You can't or won't answer the questions. That's what I thought. But that my friend is not only reality, it is also real history. There are no unrelated connections and yes at the time, it was like bad dream.
Speaking of bad dreams, Reagan also fired all the air traffic controllers who were on strike, causing an upset to the safety of the entire airline industry...Do you remember that? or are you too young? He also closed down all the mental institutions and put mentally ill people on the streets, throughout the nation. Until this day, we have never recovered from that.
Those institutions never opened again. And now we have mentally ill people performing mass killings of innocent people. That is not an unrelated connection. It is fact.
I agree people.
Regan started the whole, give it to the wealthy and it will trickle down to the poor. Worst concept ever.
Reagan fireed air teaffic controllers because they were public servants and blackmailing the government to give them all kinds of benefits...
As far as I know, no aircraft crashed as a result.
The mental institutions were closed as a result of abuses at Willowbrook in Staten Island as exposed by Geraldo Revera...
You are putting out lies after lies about Reagan. What is wrong with a person so full of hate that he would denigrade a deceased president who has done so much for our nation?
Jack: They are only lies because you refuse to believe them. It's hard for you to understand that he did do some good things but he also did a lot of bad things. You and many people like you are suffering from right wing propaganda that wont let you see the truth. I've heard Sean Hannity say that he is a Reagan Conservative. Do you know how old Hannity was when Reagan was in office? He was 20 years old and still wet behind he ears. I don't have hate. I'm trying to be reality based. I lived through those years. You might have as well, but you have been subject to right wing propaganda. What I'm trying to present is facts, not left wing propaganda.
Here is a short time line from a Mother Jones article. If you don't believe me, google the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1980. Who cares if he is deceased? It'a part of history. Your citing by Geraldo Rivera is just once instance. The repeal of that act affected the entire nation for years to come. We still don't have funding for mental institutions.
There are 650 community health facilities serving 1.9 million mentally ill patients a year.
President Jimmy Carter signs the Mental Health Systems Act, which aims to restructure the community mental-health-center program and improve services for people with chronic mental illness.
President Jimmy Carter Library of Congress
Under President Ronald Reagan, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act repeals Carter’s community health legislation and establishes block grants for the states, ending the federal government’s role in providing services to the mentally ill. Federal mental-health spending decreases by 30 percent.
An Ohio-based study finds that up to 30 percent of homeless people are thought to suffer from serious mental illness.
Federal funding drops to 11 percent of community mental-health agency budgets.
Clozapine, the first “atypical” antipsychotic drug to be developed, is approved by the FDA as a treatment for schizophrenia.
Studies suggest approximately 16 percent of prison and jail inmates are seriously mentally ill, roughly 320,000 people. This year, there are about 100,000 psychiatric beds in public and private hospitals. That means there are more three times as many seriously mentally ill people in jails and prisons than in hospitals.
In the aftermath of the Great Recession, states are forced to cut $4.35 billion in public mental-health spending over the next three years, the largest reduction in funding since deinstitutionalization.
There are 43,000 psychiatric beds in the United States, or about 14 beds per 100,000 people—the same ratio as in 1850.
Peoplepower , How is it that you belong to a party that has decided that every single political thing that happens is the WORST thing that could possibly happen in the world , has anyone over there in liberal land thought about what's going to happen when your younger party members WAKE UP to that fact ?
From Reagan's first political decisions all the way through two Bush's to Trump's last ones you and your political offspring belong to the NaySayers of the last of the 20th and the newest 21st century . AND YET , all of the political corruptions that you mention have been trumped [no pun intended ]by your party by ten times in JUST THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
Your party has totally corrupted the very democracy that you constantly state your party's defence OF but not by one or two political issues , by every single one . You make absolutely no political sense anymore , your party makes no political sense any more . Your party is a dying political entity . Like slavery itself ,like the black voting rights like women not allowed to vote , like civil rights , labor rights , children's labor rights , you have obstructed ever advancement known to a progressive society .
And now your party has lost all of your political capital and sits idle and powerless while you allow those like Maxine Waters , Nancy Pelosi , Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Gillibrand ,Schumer and other outdated and unhinged fringe political members to define your entire forward direction and to steer your ideological growth into history ?
Keep pulling that democratic voting handle Peoplepower , You are quickly advancing your entire party right into the promise of political oblivion .
ahorseback: You seem to forget, Hillary won the majority popular vote. Those people are still alive and well. Trump plays to his base, not the people who voted for Hillary. He is afraid to do that. He is all about bringing back coal miners because they live in the electoral college states. He feels beholden to them. I'm sure he will do it.
The problem is the health effects of coal. It is the 21st century for God Sake, but he will keep his promise, because he is Trump.
I'm sure the GOP will win the mid-terms. But we will all have to see how Trump plays out his agenda of "Economic Nationalism" (Trump's and Steve Bannon's name for Reaganomics and closing the borders). These are still the early stages of his agenda by his own admission.
I have to give the GOP credit. They have been on the march to take over both the federal government and local governments since the time of LBJ and Civil Rights. They are very good at aggressively organizing, attacking and using propaganda very effectively. On the other hand, liberals are terrible at doing the same thing. They are more at live and let live kind of people. Liberals are right brain people. Conservatives are left brain people...look it up!
Now Trump has played right into the hands of the GOP and they have taken control of the Supreme Court for perpetuity. Congratulations, you have won.
But, You think you can overwhelm me by your deluge of insults and unfounded exaggerations about me and liberals. Well you are wrong. I deal in facts that are just the other side of your confirmation bias. I already commented on this in Jack's comments, but here it is again for you.
"Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true."
Here is the link to the article if you would like to read it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … ation-bias
Jack and ahorseback:
Right at this moment PDT 9:16 a.m. Fox News is covering the campaign of a conservative in Michigan and in the lower right corner of the screen, in a barely view-able little frame is the protest going on across the country about splitting of the children from their families. To make matters even worse, there is no audio.
On CNN, there is complete full coverage of the protests across the nation. They are switching from one city to another while interviewing the people in the protest.
My point is: If you are Fox viewer right now, you probably don't even know about these protests, but you definitely know there is a conservative candidate from Michigan trying to convince people to vote for him.
If you were watching CNN, you would know that the country is fed up with Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy. Now do you see the difference, in confirmation bias?
Still too complicated for them to grasp.
It's totally blocked out for having a cement head.
No, the american people are smarter than that. Most people polled show they blame the family for bringing their kids to sneak into our country.
Jack: Again confirmation bias. The key operative here is "most people polled show." Most people is a generalization. What poll is it and did you look any further into it or were you just satisfied once you found that information that confirms your wishes and beliefs? Who are the people who blame the families for sneaking their kids into our country? How many people were in today's protest across the nation? Were there more or less than your "most people." Did you get that information from Fox News?
So by that logic, why take any polls?
If the answer provided by polls don’t agree with your perception, just call it bias...
The American people have said again and again they want border enforcement...and this last Presidential election was a key issue.
For you to deny what they want and push an open borders agenda of the radical progressives which again by polls is at most 20% of the population, 40% are conservative...
Jack: Hundred of thousands of people in cities across the nation were protesting Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy and separation of children from their parents. How does that number compare to your polls? Don't forget, Hillary won the popular vote. Those people are still alive and well. Again, what polls are you talking about and what is the source for your information?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m … story.html
Here is the poll -
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/21/rasmu … er-crisis/
Here are other stories of Americans separated from their families as result of illegal immigrants...
http://time.com/5320128/trump-undocumen … eparation/
Tell it to Kate Steinle’s parents who was shot dead in San Francisco and died in the arms of her dad...killed by an illegal alien who was acquited of the crime.
Jack: I saw this on the news. Trump's logic is if he can show a few cases where illegal aliens committed murder, than all illegal aliens can commit murder as well. I have to give Trump credit for his showmanship and fear mongering.
That is not what he is saying. He is saying we need to take care our citizens first and put their security above the illegals as any other country would. For you and the progressives to blame America and Trump for doing the right thing is your mistake. The American people are smarter than that. .
Jack: There was a 1,000 voters in that poll. There was more protesters in one venue than that. There were literally hundreds of thousands of people protesting with the same message. Rasmussen poll is a conservative leaning poll.
"After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model."
Yes, this is my confirmation bias, but I want to believe it.
You and these protesters are reacting to emotions...and not thinking through this issue. It is like in the old west of mob lynching...
The probem is complex and has many components. It is exasperated by the increased numbers of people coming.and the mix of families with human traffickers...
It is not our fault and the solution is to discourage these people from coming in the first place and making Mexico change their ways... They are acting like funnels to these people.
The bias is what created this uproar over splitting families at the border. This was an orchestrated outrage. As noted by many, the same was happening under Obama with no objection...
Confirmation Bias ?
Is the party of such a corrupted inner workings as to allow the "under the table "purchasing of in candidacy by Hillary over Sanders and two other candidates , and them "folding " to that travesty of democracy?
Is Confirmation Bias when a Nation Presidential debate where the questions are pre-handed to your candidate in an earpiece ?
Perhaps Conformational Bias is when a candidate assumes victory to the point that visiting the states where her potential voters live in unnecessary , BECAUSE the liberal majority media tells her "Don't worry , you won" ?
Confirmation Bias might be when you win by electoral college and it's the best election system in the world but to Lose by it and our election system is now incredibly outdated ?
Conformational bias might be when you lose to Trump the head of the DNC now says "Our President is Still Obama "?
Conformational Bias could be when an entire party can't handle the presidential election outcome two years later ?
But , to you , The right is delusional ?
All you other points are bias too .
ahroseback: Yes all of those things you listed are your confirmation bias. It proves to you Hillary can't be trusted. She and all the the democratic liberals are stupid, intolerant, corrupt, and not to be trusted.
My confirmation bias is we have a president who is a chronic lair, suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, exaggerates, plays only to his base, is racist and has been used by the GOP to take over the local governments and the federal governments to make money flow to the top of corporations and big money interest. He also uses Fox News as his state run media outlet and advisors.
I don't think I ever said the right is delusional.
Peoplepower , Explain to us all please ,Why do you think that Trump should actually play to YOUR base ? Here's a revelation for you , Trump won against the wishes , dreams and hopes of a socialist democracy that you would transform America into ? And yes , I do believe that . So who's delusional ?
Here's to your other rant half ; Your accusations are baseless , entirely baseless , "............Trump is racist, ...chronic liar......personality disorder .......take over the GOP ..........." You're suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome peoplepower and you know that very well , I know that I don't need to repeat it constantly .
The protest across America right now are nothing but an alt-left meltdown over the severe losses of your party in recent years ,
Obama's failure to launch , Hillary's , Sanders , all of which is a failed attempt to bring socialism to the government's highest offices AND especially to the supreme courts of America .
Trump is fighting two party's and is doing so at the behest of the cross generated parties that elected him , Do you have a clue at how many democrats and republicans crossed the voting booth lines to elect someone outside of the two parties ? And do you also remember in past decades when even democrats wanted to clean up D,C. politics ? That absolutely STILL baffles me about democrats obstructing Trump today , proving that YOU never wanted anything but bigger governments , entitlement spending and absolutely O accountability from Congress .
No , it's not Trump that suffers mental issues .
ahorseback: I didn't ever say Trump should play to our base. He plays to his base because of his narcissistic tendencies to be adored by the people that voted for him in the electoral college states. I never said delusional. You can believe what you want to about his transforming the country into MAGA.
I don't want bigger government spending. Social security and medicare are not entitlements. I paid for mine...did you pay for yours? And yet Trump and the GOP want to cut them. I have news for you. The government by its very nature is self-nurturing and will always grow in one form or another. If "entitlements" are cut, that money will be spent elsewhere, like on Trump's wall that was going to paid for by Mexico.
The protests now are not about losing the election. They are about the separation of about 2,300 children being separated from their parents. Just read the protesters signs.
Insulting me isn't going to get you anyplace. Trump is a chronic lair, suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, exaggerates, is a hypocrite, plays only to his base, is racist and has been used by the GOP to take over the local governments and the federal governments to make money flow to the top of corporations and big money interest.
He also uses Fox News as his state run media outlet and advisors. He calls the other media the fake news and enemy of the people. He doesn't want a free press. He wants to control it, like all dictators do. He admires Putin and Kim, because he wants to be like them. Admiring powerful, strong leaders, even though they are your enemy is an NPD symptom.
These are not insults. I can prove every statement. You know it and I know it.
When you vote for somebody, you have a vested interest in hoping you are right and they do the things you wish. That's the point where your voters are with Trump and you don't want people like me upsetting your apple cart.
So, I am going to turn this around on you. What is your solution to deal with the thousands that are coming to our borders with children...?
If you don’t separate them, how do you proceed?
Do you setup hotels for all these families, pay for their food and housing and education and medical care? While they wait months for a court hearing?
You expect the Americsn people just pay for this without a say?
If thousands come now, what if 10,000 come next month?
Just like with the homeless in San Francisco and Seattle, when you invite them in with free stuff, guess what, you get more of them...
It is common sense.
I am waiting for your brilliant and compassionate solution to this problem?
Jack: I'm no president. All right wing conservatives criticize Obama's immigration policy. But it was a zero sum game. He deported as many as he allowed in.
I don't know how to re-unite 2,300 kids with their parents. That is the problem that Trump, Sessions, and Miller created. But just for the sake of discussion, let's say they are all united again.
I would then deport all of them back to Mexico and we would split the cost with Mexico for their rehabilitation. Right now we are paying for their detention. Wouldn't it be better for the families if they were together on the other side of the border than being here and being separated and detained indefinitely, while we pay for their shelter and care?
It seems to me, if the FBI and the CIA can find missing people, they should be able to find the those kids, but who knows?
You are assuming these people wants to be found...
Jack: Of course they want to be found. If you have kids, do you want to be separated from them? Are you assuming, they don't want to be found? Many of them are little children for God's sake. I don't think Trump wants them to be found.
As we've found thousands and thousands of kids coming across the border without their parents it doesn't seem unbelievable that those parents don't want their kids found.
Are you sure YOU want them found? After all, if they remain on the loose eventually they'll enter the DACA status - the one where Obama decided he wouldn't enforce the laws of the country any more and liberals nearly died when Trump said he WOULD follow the law. Anything for a potential liberal voter, and if means they lose their parents, that's OK, right?
Why in the world would we pay Mexico to "rehabilitate" anyone at all? That sounds like a great way for Mexico to make another grab for American money while encouraging their residents (legal or not) to sneak across the border again.
"I would then deport all of them back to Mexico ..."
Hi peoplepower73, I grabbed a piece of your response - not to challenge it, but only because it is a question I don't think has been asked.
Can we just deport them back to Mexico?
From what I understand, the bulk of the illegals are not Mexican citizens. I would think Mexico might have a problem with us just sending bus loads of women and children to the other side of the border.
Of course that thought pops the question - to where are we deporting the ones we deny now? (the obvious implication is I haven't bothered to look for either answer)
I know you included splitting costs arrangements in your thought, but my thought is why would Mexico even consider the idea.
What do you think?
An interesting question - are we no required to research the world's records for country of citizenship before deportation? Or can we put them into the country they entered the US from?
Well hell, I guess since I raised the question I better see if I can find the answer. Maybe.
GA: Here is the answer from USA Today, June 25, 2018
"Individuals from Mexico are usually flown to U.S. border cities and either walk or are bused across the border. Those from Central American countries are flown direct. ICE Air Operations (IAO) handles air transport.
Because federal law requires that people are deported directly back to their home countries, IAO runs regular deportation flights to Central America and occasional flights to other countries."
Here is the link to the entire article:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/339 … ost4014293
The actual question was how do we know what country they are from? Whatever they choose to claim? Or are we required to research other countries records and find proof?
A Mexican citizen could claim he was from Australia and get free transportation for a nice visit if we don't check the claims, yet it seems impossible to do so, particularly with nations that don't want them back.
Now that prompted a mental picture that made me chuckle.
I see Pedro arguing with a deportation guy, in Spanish, with an affected Aussie accent: "Pero señor, soy australiano. Mira, compañero, tengo camarones en la barbie"
*For any who think that is stereotyping, you are probably right. And for those that think it was offensive - chill out, it was a joke.
"Mire, compadre, tengo camarones en la barbie"
Randy: Sounds good to me.
GA: Thanks for the levity. I think we all needed some of that. Sometimes, it gets way too intense in these political forums.
Thanks peoplepower73, I was too lazy to go looking.
But... I don't think that was the link you intended.
This might be the one you meant to post: https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interact … explainer/
Peoplepower , The smart thing for Trump to do is to keep on keeping on , If two thousand or ten thousand kids are taken from their parents it's because of the illegality and stupidity of their parents , not the stupidity you accuse Trump or his constituency of . The illegal immigrant , If acting within the American society, would have "lost their kids" long ago for their treatment and abuses .
You have done nothing BUT support the Alt-left causes from day one although they have not only hijacked your party's morality , but they have permanently stolen your sense of party ethics and falsely tarnished your own service and sacrifice to country . Your party has lost all of your future, political capital , gambling it away on phony adopted socialism , guaranteed government incomes for all , free health care at the expense of all , and every lost puppy entitlement known to Failed socialist countries all over the world !
You and your party have reached a point where no one is listening to you anymore so you had to take it to the streets , good luck with that in America , Americans are too strong to be beaten in the streets , too intelligent to be taken in the schools , too dedicated to ethics , morality and pride to be shunned in your media .
USA -1 Socialism -O
Your first paragraph, makes me sick, especially when you dehumanize others. I never said that Trump is stupid. But he is mean and evil and gets away with it with out any accountability. That in itself is a perverse sort of brilliance.
In your second paragraph, how about looking at it this way? The GOP with all of its instruments of propaganda, funding, organizing, attacking, and opposition has succeeded in destroying the left. We didn't do it on our own. We give you credit for a very large part of it.
Congratulations, there is no balance of power in state and federal governments anymore. I know you are happy with your new form of government. It'a pretty much the same as a third world country devolves to before they are taken over by dictators.
In your third paragraph, That's why the million mile march for civil rights didn't work. The protest in front of the capital to get out of Viet Nam didn't work as well.
In your last sentence, you don't think that liberal democrats are American? You have to differentiate between our party and Americans? I have news for you I bleed just like you do.
"In your last sentence, you don't think that liberal democrats are American?"
Sometimes I have to wonder. All too often the liberal democrats appear to think they are citizens of Earth, not any specific country, and they have found a rich source of resources (America) they can give to their fellow "Earthians".
by Jack Lee 13 months ago
Question of the day...If the North and South Korea decides to end the war and work towards reunification, will Trump be given the credit? The Nobel peace prize? The one President Obama won after being elected in 2008.If history tellls us anything, the answer is NO.We had a similar case with Ronald...
by egiv 9 years ago
I can't wait to read about how big of a joke the (Norwegian) Nobel Prize selecting committee is and that since nazi Germany loved Hitler and so many love Obama, it logically makes Obama Hitler.Can you people be proud for once that we have a great leader? He is not perfect, nobody is, but for god's...
by neonline69 9 years ago
What do you think are the reasons for which the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Barack Obama?Barack Obama is the fourth President to win the Nobel Peace Prize behind Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. Tell with us why YOU think President Obama won this prestigious award.Leave...
by Stump Parrish 8 years ago
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/ar … paragraph3Amen, the only threat they posed our government was the threat of discovery. Not that it matters, most in this country feel this country has the right to rule the world as they see fit. Abusing human rights is the prefered...
by Barefootfae 6 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/30/o … ize-right/Ok, when I was in the Army I had a security clearance that I will promise you was equal or greater than that of Bradley Manning.It did not matter what the information was that was classified if you allowed it to be released or God forbid...
by Singular Investor 8 years ago
I thought it would be a neat idea to award Julian Assange the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 - if he's still alive of course - but it seems I was not the only one to have the same thought - the Russian government has suggested it already - 2 Peace Prize Winners imprisoned - 1 in the USA (he ain't there...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|