Thursday, June 21, 2018

The Democratic plan to fix the border family separation problem...

Basically their plan is to make it impossible to arrest anyone within 100 miles of a border port. Of course it makes no consideration as to whether the people in question are citizens or illegals who crossed the border. So effectively, arresting an American citizen for a normal crime, thus removing a child from that guardian, could be effectively against this law?


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Keep Families Together Act”.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES.
(a) In General.—An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:
(1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.
(2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.
(3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that—
(A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;
(B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or
(C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.
(b) Prohibition On Separation.—An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the United States or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with civil immigration laws.
(c) Documentation Required.—The Secretary shall ensure that a separation under subsection (a)(3) is documented in writing and includes, at a minimum, the reason for such separation, together with the stated evidence for such separation.

58 comments:

Myballs said...

Scotus approves internet sales tax

Perhaps more surprising, justices Thomas abd Ginsburg both agree.

Anonymous said...

This is a States Rights Victory. The SCOTUS got this one right.

caliphate4vr said...

“Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union featured in a new report released today show the pervasive abuse and neglect of unaccompanied immigrant children detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The report was produced in conjunction with the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.

These documents provide a glimpse into a federal immigration enforcement system marked by brutality and lawlessness,” said Mitra Ebadolahi, ACLU Border Litigation Project staff attorney. “All human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status — and children, in particular, deserve special protection. The misconduct demonstrated in these records is breathtaking, as is the government’s complete failure to hold officials who abuse their power accountable. The abuse that takes place by government officials is reprehensible and un-American.”


2009-2014

Huh the evil Trump wasn't President then......

Anonymous said...

Yep. The Lost years just keep getting worse.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Flores v. Loretta Lynch – The 9th Circuit Decision"

Roger, you said no such LAW existed.
Wrong again .

commie said...

From cali's report....once again missing half the story.....


FLORES: Yeah. So the difficult thing about ineffective investigations is that all claims remain unsubstantiated

IOW's who knows....but also from the same report

FLORES: I think there is definitely cause for concern that things appear to be getting worse. The rhetoric that is being used by the current administration - not only by President Trump but Attorney General Jeff Sessions - that has used words like stampede and invade when describing migrants' attempts to enter the country. It does seem like there is a situation that is getting worse. And this week on Wednesday, there was even a report of a 20-year-old young woman who was shot by a border patrol officer.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: How are these new policies affecting migrant families, in your view?

FLORES: Well, the separation is making it obviously more difficult for migrant families. And frankly, the policies are incredibly ineffective. From the perspective of migrant children, migrant children have no idea what they're getting into. They don't know our complicated immigration policies.

Like I asked before, wonder how much fat head read before he came in his pants about Obama's fault.....sad, very sad...

Myballs said...

Roseanne gets her career shit canned but Fonda gets a pass.

Double standard?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Unless

1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.
(2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.
(3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that—
(A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;
(B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or
(C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.

You are lying to us again in the manner of the President.

Basically their plan is to make it impossible to arrest anyone within 100 miles of a border port. Of course it makes no consideration as to whether the people in question are citizens or illegals who crossed the border. So effectively, arresting an American citizen for a normal crime, thus removing a child from that guardian, could be effectively against this law?


Enjoy being a pathological liar

Anonymous said...

Roseanne gets her career shit canned but Fonda gets a pass.

Double standard?"

Of course, the latter is A Trump Hater and committed a crime.

Anonymous said...

Flores v. Loretta Lynch – The 9th Circuit Decision"

Roger, you said no such LAW existed.
Wrong again .

caliphate4vr said...

Like I asked before, wonder how much fat head read before he came in his pants

Fatty you really have some bizarre, repressed sexual thoughts...I’ve never wondered about another man cumming in his pants or anywhere...Come out, it’s cathartic

And seek help for your anger issues

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2018/06/flores-v-loretta-lynch-the-9th-circuit-decision-that-created-the-illegal-alien-family-separation-mess/

It's not true. You can't see English above 8th grade F student.

Anonymous said...

Alky, I an unsure why or what your protesting.
Your link goes to the Reno/Lynch/9th Circuit Court Case I cited.

Wrong wrong when you said no such case/Law existed.

Anonymous said...

I will spoon feed you old broken Rog.
"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JENNY LISETTE FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General, Attorney General of
the United States; JEH JOHNSON,
Secretary of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, and its
subordinate entities; U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS
AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants-Appellants.

No. 15-56434
D.C. No.
2:85-cv-04544-
DMG-AGR"

Anonymous said...




alky,

you've been caught lying so many times this week your opinion isn't worth a pinch of shit.

fuck you and the walker you rode in on.



Anonymous said...

RRB, Is Alky pissed off because I pointed and cited the Reno/Lynch/9th Circuit Court Case?

The One Alky said was non-existent.

Or that he is yet wrong again and I proved him wrong.









CO

Anonymous said...

A BILL

To limit the separation of families at or near ports of entry.

Section 1.Short title

This Act may be cited as the Keep Families Together Act.

Sec 2.Limitation on the separation of families

(a)In general

An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:




how's that blog of yours coming along, alky? since CH is such a liar and all, and a pathological liar at that, i can see why you'd want to start your own blog. a place for serious discussion and contemplation of the most pressing liberal asshattery of the day.

you know, those things you and your 3 followers twit about all the time.



Anonymous said...



Blogger KD said...
RRB, Is Alky pissed off because I pointed and cited the Reno/Lynch/9th Circuit Court Case?



could be. or it could just be his basic literacy and reading comprehension struggles. he accuses CH and others of lying about things that are plainly in feinstein's open borders bill.

to me, john wayne said it best;

life is hard.

it's harder if you're stupid.


so you have an alky who drank his first liver to necrosis, got lucky and found a spare, and then has gotten himself so fucked up on narcotics he can't stand or move without the assistance of a walker. and he lives in a shithole in mexifornia.

for anyone else whose life is such dumpster fire of raw human shit i would be able to muster a modicum of empathy.

for the alky? not so much.


Anonymous said...

I agree.

Anonymous said...

Charles Krauthammer has died.

caliphate4vr said...

That makes me sad...Kraut was awesome

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The Republicans can't get the immigration reform bill to a vote until next week.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

unless one of the following has occurred:

The exceptions don't mean they shall be separated UNLESS

Anonymous said...

And?

Anonymous said...

Obama did nothing but make it worse for 8 years.

Anonymous said...

Northrop Grumman Corporation stock
Was $356.11
Now $313.45

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

He got us out of the worst economic recession since 1929. We never got to 24% unemployment like in the Great Depression. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month.

You're very stupid.

Anonymous said...

You really want to go toe to toe with th Trump Economy vs The Lost Years,

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

CH is a liar again.

He used to be rational but Trump has made him a cultist.

Anonymous said...

Lol, your acting like a emotional teen girl.

James said...

GOP IN DEEP TROUBLE

House Republicans Delay Immigration Vote

“Republicans faced growing opposition to their bill despite last-minute lobbying from President Trump,” the Washington Post reports.

“In the face of defeat, Republicans decided prior to an emergency closed-door meeting with rank and file members to postpone the vote until Friday.”

New York Times: “The compromise bill is facing trouble with conservatives, who would be taking a political risk by supporting a bill that has been derided as offering ‘amnesty’ to young undocumented immigrants. With its chances appearing dim, Speaker Paul Ryan declined to speculate on the House’s next move. Republicans in the Senate are backing narrow legislation to ensure that children are not taken from their parents at the border.”

James said...

GOP IN MORE DEEP TROUBLE

House Narrowly Passes Farm Bill

“A deeply polarizing farm bill passed the House on party lines Thursday, a month after the legislation went down to stunning defeat after getting ensnared in the toxic politics of immigration,” the Washington Post reports.

“The legislation, which passed 213-211, includes controversial new work rules for most adult food-stamp recipients — provisions that are dead on arrival in the Senate.”

James said...

U.S. Will Stop Prosecuting Migrant Parents

The U.S. government will no longer file criminal charges against parents who cross the border illegally, a senior U.S. Customs official told the Washington Post.

“The dramatic about-face comes just one day after President Trump signed an executive order ending his administration’s widely denounced practice of separating families apprehended at the Mexico border.”

“Trump’s order said the government would maintain a ‘zero tolerance’ policy toward those who break the law, but a senior U.S. official, when asked to explain how the federal government would change enforcement practices, told The Washington Post that Border Patrol agents have been instructed to stop sending parents with children to federal courthouses for prosecution.”
__________________

So Trump's zero tolerance becomes zero prosecution.

Explain that one away, DONALD.

Anonymous said...

The farm bill passed, James how many Dems said no to the very Ranchers and Farmers you and HB have shown so much sudden concern?

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton Era "controversial new work rules for most adult food-stamp recipients "

James said...

The farm bill passed, KD screeches.

It's DEAD ON ARRIVAL in the Senate.

Anonymous said...

TRUMP CONTINUES TO CLEAN UP OBAMA'S MESS

Jeh Johnson, former secretary of homeland security under President Obama, admitted that they expanded family detention centers under his watch in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Thursday afternoon.


The issue of separating families when they are apprehended illegally trying to enter the country has been a hot topic over the last week.

The president has received a lot of criticism for the policy, even after signing an executive order to stop the separation of families. These policies were also in place under the Obama Administration.

Anonymous said...

Jane, I see your failures continue on a topic you care so deeply about. The US Rancher and Farmer.

Let me spoon feed you.
EVERY Democrat voted against the US Farmer and Rancher in the US House.

Anonymous said...

Spoon feeding the woefully uneducated liberal.

"President Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it".

Anonymous said...

Filling liberals with facts.

"PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program—which had been in effect since 1935—and supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS) of 1988. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005."

Anonymous said...

e Rasmussen poll shows that Americans don’t blame the Trump administration for the approximately 2,000 children who have been separated from their parents.

54 percent of likely voters polled by Rasmussen said that they think the parents are more to blame for breaking the law.

Only 35 percent said the government is more to blame for the crisis.

Further, 54 percent of voting Americans agree with President Trump’s assertion that “The United States will not be a migrant camp. And it will not be a refugee-holding facility — it won’t be.”

Anonymous said...

james's earlier post quoting Washington Post.

FAKE NEWS

Or just another lie, hard to tell which it is with the "pastor"

Anonymous said...

Marvelous TIME Magazine cover----
Welcome to America.

Anonymous said...

"Marvelous TIME Magazine cover---- "

Busted by the father.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"Mexico is doing nothing for us, except taking our money and sending us drugs," President Trump asserts in Cabinet meeting.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"I REALLY DON'T CARE. DO U?"

Do U care? U don't care @realDonaldTrUmp do U?

Anonymous said...

Lol, she Triggered alky.
Too funny.

Anonymous said...

Misery index.
Carter = 21.98
Bush "W" = 11.47
Obimbo = 12.97

Guess which one low IQ alky believes was the worse economy since the Great Recession.

commie said...

Guess which one low IQ alky believes

My cat has a higher IQ than a loser like you......the one who supports trump and thinks kids should be expendable....be proud asshole!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The Washington Examiner (Conservative Media)

Too often it seems that no one actually speaks to each other in Trump’s White House. During the avoidable human rights crisis that was the unilateral Trump policy to separate children and their parents seeking asylum at the border, everyone in the administration seemed to have a different excuse. Trump erroneously claimed that it was a Democratic law and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pretended that no such policy existed.

But it was Attorney General Jeff Sessions whose memory – per usual – seemed to fail him at the most convenient moment. He not only admitted that the policy was a deterrent for others seeking to enter the U.S., but even suggested that the Bible gives ample justification for the policy.


“Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution,” Sessions explained. “I would cite to you the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”



“If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border,” Sessions later said in a speech in San Diego.

“If you don’t want your child to be separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault,” he continued.


Notwithstanding the fact that he already admitted the real and diabolical purpose of the inhumane policy, Sessions purposefully conflates seeking asylum with “violating the law.” It is not, nor has it ever been, illegal for people to seek asylum in the United States, which is precisely the “crime” for which they’re being punished at the border.

As The Times and others have reported, asylum seekers are also being turned away when they do present themselves at ports of entry. Even when immigrants improperly cross the border, they can still legally seek asylum.

But the administration’s zero-tolerance policy subjects all who cross the border illegally, including asylum seekers, to prosecution.”

Now, however, Sessions is claiming a new defense.

The Attorney General told the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody that the administration “never really intended to” separate families at the border, after all.


“It hasn’t been good and the American people don’t like the idea that we are separating families… We never really intended to do that,” he said. “What we intended was to make sure that adults who bring children into the country are charged with the crime that they have committed.”

Not only did the policy “intend” to separate families, given that the directive was clear and the intent was promulgated by Sessions himself, but he essentially admits that his concession came as the result of poor optics into the manufactured crisis. The fact that the Attorney General could not have predicted that separating kids and parents and throwing them into cages would reflect poorly on the administration is a testament to his utter carelessness for both America’s humanitarian obligations and the overwhelming will of its citizens.
"I REALLY DON'T CARE. DO U?"

Do U care? U don't care @realDonaldTrUmp do U?



Anonymous said...

Oh good morning , I see your on your job early. Apologiest for Alky.

Anonymous said...

Misery index.
Carter = 21.98
Bush "W" = 11.47
Obimbo = 12.97

Guess which one low IQ alky believes was the worse economy since the Great Recession.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/06/21/jeff-sessions-just-contradicted-himself-in-jaw-dropping-reversal-over-caged-kids-policy-watch/

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

That's animal cruelty!

commie said...

To help understand the current political debate over the children issue, a closer look shows that 82% of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either major political party feel the parents are more to blame for breaking the law. But 60% of Democrats say the government is more to blame for enforcing the law.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of Democrats think the Trump administration is too aggressive in trying to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States, a view shared by only 23% of Republicans and a plurality (46%) of unaffiliated voters.

Seems to me that the independents surveyed are truly closet republicans who do not reveal their true identity...nothing new there especially from rassmussen....Nice try again dip wad.....

commie said...

President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 46, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +6
2018 Generic Congressional Vote CNN Democrats 50, Republicans 42 Democrats +8
2018 Generic Congressional Vote USA Today/Suffolk Democrats 45, Republicans 39 Democrats +6
Direction of Country USA Today/Suffolk Right Direction 40, Wrong Track 49

President Trump Job Approval Quinnipiac Approve 43, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +9
President Trump Job Approval USA Today/Suffolk Approve 43, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +8
President Trump Job Approval Pew Research Approve 42, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +11
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 44, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +9
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 44, Disapprove 50 Disapprove +6
2018 Generic Congressional Vote Quinnipiac Democrats 49, Republicans 43 Democrats +6

These polls will certainly change in the next few days as voters come out of their coma......certainly see some erosion from the highs you all were so proud of