Under a federal court agreement known as the Flores settlement, unaccompanied migrant children are supposed to be housed in "non-secure" facilities, which means the children cannot be prevented from coming and going as they please. The facility's administrator said that is technically the case in Homestead, but acknowledged that the facility is surrounded by a tall covered fence and monitored by a large team of private security contractors.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
elengil wrote:Is it? Are Republicans pushing for it and Democrats not? Is that what you meant to say? Or do you just mean not quite enough Democrats are backing it to overcome all the Republicans opposed to it?
Generally speaking, I say what I mean and mean what I say. My understanding was that lack of support from Dems is what had kept Pelosi from bringing the bill up for a vote.
Complaining about horrendous conditions while withholding support for a bill that would alleviate them seems somewhat hypocritical to me.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
The House approved a $4.5 billion supplemental spending bill on Tuesday night to address humanitarian issues at the U.S.-Mexico border and to provide additional funding for food, water, medical services and stronger protections for unaccompanied children, among other things -- setting up a showdown between the Democrat-led House and the Republican-led Senate.
...
President Trump warned Monday that he would veto the House bill if it passed, accusing Democrats of “inserting policy provisions that would make our country less safe,” the White House said in a statement
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
yovargas wrote:I very much doubt Dems are actually witholding without there bring a larger explanation or context. Link?
Sorry about no links. I've been shut out of the NYT and WP, and have had to cobble my understanding from various other sources I'm not that familiar with.
As I understood things when posting earlier, the progressive Dems wouldn't vote for the bill because they don't want any more money going to any aspect of Trump's immigration law enforcement apparatus, and not all of the 4.5 billion was earmarked for the detention centers.
I would very much like to know what was added to the House bill that passed tonight, that enabled it to pass. Of course, the House bill will have to be reconciled with the Senate bill before any aid can go to the children. I do not know how the two bills differ, and it appears the House bill is unacceptable to the Pres. because of restrictions on how the money not designated for the detention centers may be spent.
edit
This Reuters article explains what was added to the House bill and some differences between the House and Senate bills.
The House approved a $4.5 billion supplemental spending bill on Tuesday night to address humanitarian issues at the U.S.-Mexico border and to provide additional funding for food, water, medical services and stronger protections for unaccompanied children, among other things -- setting up a showdown between the Democrat-led House and the Republican-led Senate.
...
President Trump warned Monday that he would veto the House bill if it passed, accusing Democrats of “inserting policy provisions that would make our country less safe,” the White House said in a statement
Let me get this straight. Providing funding for food, water and medical services for CHILDREN is going to make the country 'less safe'?
The ONLY way I can see that logic as working is if Trump is afraid improving conditions is going to result in more migrants crossing the border. Which means HE WANTS the conditions to be vile...
No, not surprised...as Frelga said upstream, cruelty is the name of the game!
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
So the Democratic led house passes a bill to aid needy immigrants. Trump threatens to veto it, the Senate says they won't pass it unless they can tack on some extra stuff not for aid....and somehow Dems get blamed for blocking aid? I don't know where you got your original info, Cerin, but they sure did an impressive spin job!
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
You're quite right, yov. That will teach me to post without having a comprehensive understanding of a situation.
Sunsilver wrote:
Let me get this straight. Providing funding for food, water and medical services for CHILDREN is going to make the country 'less safe'?
No, denying funding for immigration law enforcement was going to make the country less safe.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Unfortunately, the current administration considers border security to be equivalent to the wall.
Anecdotally, and as a personal and rather cynical opinion of our Israeli acquaintances, they consider their West Bank wall to be a sort of occupational therapy, as it keeps certain people busy building tunnels under it. Keep in mind that the stated purpose of that wall was to keep out suicide bombers, not immigrants. And most of it isn't actually a wall, except in urban areas.
Unfortunately, the humanitarian crisis is only likely to get worse. I can't imagine, and hope I never have to know, what it is like to be in such desperate circumstances. The trauma these children will have to cope with for the rest of their lives is heartbreaking.
Cerin wrote:So, I am completely befuddled by the left's stance on illegal immigration. ... The Dems don't want a wall, they don't want more money for border security or detention centers, they don't want people prevented from entering illegally, they don't want people detained, they don't want people deported; they'll speak vaguely about 'border security,' but I have no idea what that might mean.
yovargas wrote:...what I would say is that an illegal border crossing should be seen as a "crime" the same way speeding is a crime
I honestly thought this was an original idea of mine - I can't recall ever hearing anyone suggest it - and I assumed that it would be considered too extreme to be brought up by anyone of note. So it was very exciting for me to hear, while following coverage of last night's debate, that apparently Warren, Castro, and Tim Ryan all have said they would support decriminalizing illegal border crossings, changing it from a criminal to civil penalty. While I would be shocked if that were to actually happen anytime soon, I personally find it very exciting that it's being brought into the conversation.
Last edited by yovargas on Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
yovargas wrote:I honestly thought this was an original idea of mine - I can't recall ever hearing anyone suggest it - and I assumed that it would be considered too extreme to be brought up by anyone of note. So it was very exciting for me to hear, while following coverage of last night's debate, that apparently Warren, Castro, and Tim Ryan all have said they would support decriminalizing illegal border crossings, changing it from a criminal to civil penalty. While I would be shocked if that were to actually happen anytime soon, I personally find it very exciting that it's being brought into the conversation.
See and this is where I am baffled - I thought it was already only a civil penalty! Which is why they are tried in civil courts, not criminal courts, which is why they aren't entitled to counsel! Which is actually really pissing me off!
But let's go the step beyond that, arriving at the border is not a criminal act. Asking for asylum is not a criminal act. Why are these people being treated like criminals for literally doing nothing wrong!? If I wanted to visit Canada and instead of simply saying I wasn't going to be allowed in today, if they instead threw me in a detention center for the audacity of even asking!? Excuse me, this is the US being criminal here, not the hopeful immigrants!
John Oliver did a segment on immigration courts
Instead of putting money into a wall or even into detention centers, why not put money into actually solving the problem with more courts, judges, and actual legal counsel.
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
yov, it will almost certainly happen very soon if a Democrat wins the election.
elengil, they are being considered criminals if they break the law -- by trying to sneak across the border someplace other than an official port of entry. We have a legal process by which people may apply for entry. One hundred thirty thousand people were apprehended last month after crossing the border illegally, trying to bypass our laws. Once they are caught, they then try to claim asylum. The majority of these people don't qualify for asylum. Asylum is for refugees, defined internationally as people fleeing persecution because of race, nationality, religion, political ideology or group identification. Most of the people fleeing Central America are fleeing government dysfunction and criminal violence, not persecution for race/religion, etc.
It doesn't make much sense to me to do what we've done in the past: Let people in while their asylum claim is investigated, then deport them when it proves invalid, after they've established ties in this country. I think it would make much more sense, if we could manage it, to investigate claims more quickly and let people into the country after their asylum status is confirmed.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
It should be viewed as the humanitarian crisis that it is and the solution(s) should arise from that viewpoint. There has been a multi-year drought in Central America. Lack of drinking water, difficulty growing food crops and issues like coffee rust disease have hit hard in addition to some areas of violence and gang crime. Many of those leaving their homes and lands are farmers who can no longer feed themselves. 'No food' is often cited as a reason to emigrate. Aid has been cut. What are they to do? What would you or I do for our families/children? Would we do nothing/accept our fate and die where we are? The result has been a border/immigration crisis (in the US) but it would be wise to take a look at the root cause(s) of what is creating the issue and see what can be done if we do not wish to help them here. It would be far better than treating those in need inhumanely.
Last edited by RoseMorninStar on Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
My understanding, and it could be flawed, is that under treaties and international law those seeking asylum have the right to cross borders in the most expedient manner possible and then surrender themselves. This is because, when fleeing for your life, sometimes the most expedient way isn't the most proper way. Of course, this approach is open to abuse, but it's not unusual for Western countries to let asylum seekers walk free in their midst while their cases are reviewed. They may or may not be given social services. They may or may not be allowed to work. But they aren't detained in for-profit facilities featuring armed guards, foil blankets, and the sort of public health issues that crop up when you have too many people, insufficient medical staff, and not enough soap.
The jist of it being that Republicans have been saying for some time that they don't oppose all immigration, just illegal immigration. But anyone paying attention should know what an utter farce that is as the Trump administration has attacked literally every form of legal immigration, actively trying to reduce all every way in which people can legally become US residents. And the ways that you can become a resident is already far, far more limited and restricted than what most Americans seem to believe, being mostly impossible and largely involving miniscule odds and dumb luck. There's a lot of ignorance around this topic and these 20 minutes do a lot to dispel some of it.
Last edited by yovargas on Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
And the video is not available, probably because I'm in Canada...
Okay, guessing this is the one:
When the night has been too lonely, and the road has been too long,
And you think that love is only for the lucky and the strong,
Just remember in the winter far beneath the bitter snows,
Lies the seed, that with the sun's love, in the spring becomes The Rose.
I haven't listened to the video yet. I wondered how U.S. policy compares to other countries and this 2018 NYT article came up; it has some helpful graphics.
