Oscar's the man
#61
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 65
Let’s see...ISIS gone, NoKo no longer shooting missiles over Japan or testing nukes, Tax cuts, Reduced corporate tax rates, booming economy, renegotiating horrible trade deals to make them FAIR to the USA, funded military ..... draining swamp of corrupt FBI/ DOJ officials....I’ll take Trump over Obama any day.. Obama was a complete disaster. Incompetent idiot.
#62
Can we be honest for a minute...…
You are all FRAUDS! LAWLESS FRAUDS! That's what you liberals are. You are opposed to everything this country stands for.
Oscar is a joke. Complete moron to take sides......another CEO failure at United.....let me count....my 9th. No bother - will be gone soon enough.
You are all FRAUDS! LAWLESS FRAUDS! That's what you liberals are. You are opposed to everything this country stands for.
Oscar is a joke. Complete moron to take sides......another CEO failure at United.....let me count....my 9th. No bother - will be gone soon enough.
#63
This thug used those kids as pawns in attempt to get his precious border wall and his (read Stevie Miller) nationalistic view of immigration. Once again, he lied during the process. When he figured he was going to lose the PR battle he rode in bare chested on his white horse to save the day.
He's just an idiot but those who are complicit in their silence repulse me more.
He's just an idiot but those who are complicit in their silence repulse me more.
#64
The narrative has gotten a bit skewed.
It has not been considered illegal in the past to try and gain entry into the USA as a refugee. While in the past the US has denied entry to some requesting status, criminalizing such a request is a new twist.
We send capital, military advisors, and intelligence operatives to their countries. This is thought of, by the powers that be, as meet, right and salutary. Perhaps it shouldn't be just a one way exchange.
I typed a bit of my family history and deleted it because I decided not to go there. Suffice it to say there are few people on this planet who are in as mortal a danger as those who are stateless. We are truly a soulless people when we forget, or worse ignore, this aspect of our world.
It has not been considered illegal in the past to try and gain entry into the USA as a refugee. While in the past the US has denied entry to some requesting status, criminalizing such a request is a new twist.
We send capital, military advisors, and intelligence operatives to their countries. This is thought of, by the powers that be, as meet, right and salutary. Perhaps it shouldn't be just a one way exchange.
I typed a bit of my family history and deleted it because I decided not to go there. Suffice it to say there are few people on this planet who are in as mortal a danger as those who are stateless. We are truly a soulless people when we forget, or worse ignore, this aspect of our world.
#65
Stay in your lane, Colin Kaepernick. Stay in your lane, Martin Luther King. Stay in your lane, Nelson Mandela. Rosa Parks. Anyone whom I don't agree with.
But if you happen to run with MY opinions, then I don't care what your lane is, you deserve to be HEARD!
I think I got it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
But if you happen to run with MY opinions, then I don't care what your lane is, you deserve to be HEARD!
I think I got it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
How bout focusing on improving the operation, Proving better customer service and reclaiming HVC. Not, alienating passengers by attacking the NRA, a lawful practice with deportees, or apologizing for the Dao incident which united employees had nothing to do with and doubling down on express who did.
As a person of color I fail to feel oppressed. But I guess one can see “injustices” around every corner if one chooses too. It’s always easier to play the victim.
P.S.
I would never attempt an act that may separate my children from me. No matter the reward.
#66
Actually, the issue is the separation of children whose parents are seeking asylum… Not illegal immigrants, not people sneaking over the border… People who are attempting to come here and seek asylum.
But the facts haven’t mattered to Republicans since March of 2002-so why should they start mattering now
Ever been to a border crossing on land? Ever talk to the agents there? Ever been inside the building?
But the facts haven’t mattered to Republicans since March of 2002-so why should they start mattering now
Ever been to a border crossing on land? Ever talk to the agents there? Ever been inside the building?
#67
Actually, the issue is the separation of children whose parents are seeking asylum… Not illegal immigrants, not people sneaking over the border… People who are attempting to come here and seek asylum.
But the facts haven’t mattered to Republicans since March of 2002-so why should they start mattering now
Ever been to a border crossing on land? Ever talk to the agents there? Ever been inside the building?
But the facts haven’t mattered to Republicans since March of 2002-so why should they start mattering now
Ever been to a border crossing on land? Ever talk to the agents there? Ever been inside the building?
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
I noticed you didn't mention about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents. How convenient.
Lots of these people are trying do just that and the Trump Administration is sending them away from the valid ports of entry and there are a myriad of other gray areas. I know that might make some uncomfortable, but it is not black and white.
So easy to say when yours and your children's lives aren't being threatened. As I said, heartless.
Lots of these people are trying do just that and the Trump Administration is sending them away from the valid ports of entry and there are a myriad of other gray areas. I know that might make some uncomfortable, but it is not black and white.
So easy to say when yours and your children's lives aren't being threatened. As I said, heartless.
Parents in the USA putting their children in harms way would be taken away from them by child protective services. Same goes here. The minor children should be removed to child protective services during the investigative phase.
You can say "heartless" all you want. Big deal. Here's the really big deal. If you want to protect your children and you are from another country looking to move to the USA, do it legally. Don't put your children in harms way. Have a heart, and be a responsible parent. Avoid the deserts of the southern USA and avoid the disreputable people smugglers, etc.
The "valid ports of entry" are only applicable if you have a passport and a visa. undocumented foreign nationals are citizens of other countries. Abide by the law, follow the law, obey the law, respect our laws, and respect our National Sovereignty. Pay your own way, and pay your own bills for you and your family. Apply, and do it legally. Otherwise, you are putting yourself and your family at risk and putting an undue and unfair burden on the tax payers.
Have a heart and respect our laws!
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
It's all about the law. Within the legal system there are opportunities for judges to "judge" the merits of someone's case. This is when and where, get this..."judgement" can be applied. Feelings, or "heart" can be applied by those in a postion of authority and who are sworn to enforce our laws and uphold the Constitution.
I suggest a brief history lesson regarding the Mayflower, the Mayflower Compact and the early settlement of the 13 colonies. Maybe a bit of research of who John and Priscilla Alden were and why their commission from King George is just as relevant today as it was in 1620.
Many historians credit John Alden as being the first legal immigrant to the colonies as he had a commission as a "cooper", or barrel maker from King George and he was first off the boat. The commission from King George was only granted because he had skills that added value to the colony. He could pull his weight and help those in the colony with valuable skills.
Same goes today....we should only admit those that add value to our community, and the first step in determining if they add value is investigating their criminal record. History of illegal activity is a non-starter for me. Illegal border crossing to me means you don't care for our National sovereignty or the rule of law. That translates to go back to your home country and start over.
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: CA
Posts: 1,232
Read this. Maybe Fox made it up?! Seriously I think the Dems just like using this issue as a club. They're wholly f'd in the head since Trump became president and are largely grown emo-adults tantrumming. MY FEELINGS COME BEFORE THE LAW!!!!
Janet Reno v. Flores
HURWITZ, Circuit Judge:
In 1997, the plaintiff class (“Flores”) and the government
entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”)
which “sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release,
and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS.”
Settlement ¶ 9. The Settlement creates a presumption in
favor of releasing minors and requires placement of those
not released in licensed, non-secure facilities that meet
certain standards.
In 2014, in response to a surge of Central Americans
attempting to enter the United States without documentation,
the government opened family detention centers in Texas
and New Mexico. The detention and release policies at these
centers do not comply with the Settlement. The government, however, claims that the Settlement only applies to
unaccompanied minors and is not violated when minors
accompanied by parents or other adult family members are
placed in these centers.
In 2015, Flores moved to enforce the Settlement, arguing
that it applied to all minors in the custody of immigration
authorities. The district court agreed, granted the motion to
enforce, and rejected the government’s alternative motion to
modify the Settlement. The court ordered the government
to: (1) make “prompt and continuous efforts toward family
reunification,” (2) release class members without
unnecessary delay, (3) detain class members in appropriate
facilities, (4) release an accompanying parent when releasing
a child unless the parent is subject to mandatory detention or
poses a safety risk or a significant flight risk, (5) monitor
compliance with detention conditions, and (6) provide class
counsel with monthly statistical information. The
government appealed, challenging the district court’s
holding that the Settlement applied to all minors in
immigration custody, its order to release parents, and its
denial of the motion to modify.
Although the issues underlying this appeal touch on
matters of national importance, our task is straightforward—
we must interpret the Settlement. Applying familiar
principles of contract interpretation, we conclude that the
Settlement unambiguously applies both to accompanied and
unaccompanied minors, but does not create affirmative
release rights for parents. We therefore affirm the district
court in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Janet Reno v. Flores
HURWITZ, Circuit Judge:
In 1997, the plaintiff class (“Flores”) and the government
entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”)
which “sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release,
and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS.”
Settlement ¶ 9. The Settlement creates a presumption in
favor of releasing minors and requires placement of those
not released in licensed, non-secure facilities that meet
certain standards.
In 2014, in response to a surge of Central Americans
attempting to enter the United States without documentation,
the government opened family detention centers in Texas
and New Mexico. The detention and release policies at these
centers do not comply with the Settlement. The government, however, claims that the Settlement only applies to
unaccompanied minors and is not violated when minors
accompanied by parents or other adult family members are
placed in these centers.
In 2015, Flores moved to enforce the Settlement, arguing
that it applied to all minors in the custody of immigration
authorities. The district court agreed, granted the motion to
enforce, and rejected the government’s alternative motion to
modify the Settlement. The court ordered the government
to: (1) make “prompt and continuous efforts toward family
reunification,” (2) release class members without
unnecessary delay, (3) detain class members in appropriate
facilities, (4) release an accompanying parent when releasing
a child unless the parent is subject to mandatory detention or
poses a safety risk or a significant flight risk, (5) monitor
compliance with detention conditions, and (6) provide class
counsel with monthly statistical information. The
government appealed, challenging the district court’s
holding that the Settlement applied to all minors in
immigration custody, its order to release parents, and its
denial of the motion to modify.
Although the issues underlying this appeal touch on
matters of national importance, our task is straightforward—
we must interpret the Settlement. Applying familiar
principles of contract interpretation, we conclude that the
Settlement unambiguously applies both to accompanied and
unaccompanied minors, but does not create affirmative
release rights for parents. We therefore affirm the district
court in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post