Jump to content

The Trump Administration 2017-


Recommended Posts

 

Still think this is a weak agreement. I think it's weaker than Obama's Iran Deal. We won't do any military exercises which is a kind of diplomatic deterrent. Congress is demanding a vote on it.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-iran/iran-warns-north-korea-trump-could-cancel-deal-before-getting-home-idUSKBN1J813Y

 

We dont know what type of person the North Korean leader is negotiating with. It is not clear that he would not cancel the agreement before returning home, Iranian government spokesman Mohammad Bagher Nobakht was quoted as saying by IRNA new agency.

 

Nobakht questioned Trumps credibility. This man does not represent the American people, and they will surely distance themselves from him at the next elections, he said.

Unless I missed something after I went to work, this "agreement" is not the same as the Iran deal. That deal was done to circumvent Congress after they rejected it at first. Yesterday was first step. From what I got from last night and this morning, no sanctions were lifted, no cash was exchanged. As for the military exercises, according to a congressman from IL, we aren't doing the exercises now anyways and we can start back up at anytime if Trump feels NK isn't living up to expectations.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As a third party voter, and hearing "wasted vote" on the daily, I am loving that both Clinton and Trump were caught rigging the election (Clinton in the primaries and Trump in the general).   Granted,

I don't know about dishonest but you're definitely fucking exhausting.

Zerimar is an anarchist. The first one Ive ever known who is older than 20.

Posted Images

It's sad. It really is. But this didn't just start happening like the outage has. I just don't get what people want. Do you want the kids going to jail with the parents? They do try to put the kids with relatives here if they have them. Maybe they should just release the parents with their kids and send them back on their merry way, but that won't be the case. They'll just try to find another way back in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So how do you guys feel about the administration removing children from families at the border?

Same way I feel about pretty much any media created story.

 

Uh, it's not a media created story. It's happening. And it's dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you break the law and have to go to jail you're going to be separated from your kids. Thats why you shouldn't break the law.

 

If you're going to have laws they need to be enforced. Otherwise there is no point in having laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uh, it's not a media created story. It's happening. And it's dumb.

It's mainly a snag in the system by a well-meaning rule that you can't hold children for more than 20 days. When a parent seeks asylum, it takes more than 20 days. Since asylum claims typically take longer than a few weeks, the government is stuck keeping the parent in custody while the kid has to go.

 

It has nothing to do with the administration other than they aren't just releasing people on the pinkie swear that they'll show up in court. The Trump Administration would be just as happy to see that 20 day limit go away. But that requires Congressional action.

 

BTW, setting the word out that children are a free pass into the country is horrible policy. Children should not be making the journey to the border just as a matter of safety. Furthermore, there's a human trafficking element to all this. Which we obviously want to close those loopholes, not open them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For real, Poe? I understand what you're saying, but saying it has "nothing to do with the administration" ignores the fact that the administration specifically ended the catch-and-release policy for the explicit purpose of separating families as a deterrent to further illegal immigration and, probably, to put more pressure on an immigration compromise

 

A "snag" is defined as an unexpected or hidden obstacle or drawback. The administration specifically expected family separation to result from the policy change, and that seems to have made the policy change more appealing to the administration.

 

Agree with the policy or not, but the current situation has everything to do with the administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For real, Poe? I understand what you're saying, but saying it has "nothing to do with the administration" ignores the fact that the administration specifically ended the catch-and-release policy for the explicit purpose of separating families as a deterrent to further illegal immigration

Agree with the policy or not, but the current situation has everything to do with the administration.

The word "explicit" means that they actually said that was the purpose. By all means, show me where the administration stated that stopping catch and release is about separating children from families.

 

I would think that it stems from the breathtakingly rational idea that asylum claims should be processed at the border.

I think the way the Obama administration and Bush admin was doing it was fair.

Allow them into the country where it become exponentially more difficult to remove them? What's fair about that?

 

What's fair is returning the children to the families after they plead out to the misdemeanor and get time served per usual process and then wait for the asylum claims to process through. That's not allowed though, so now the administration is being told that they must institute catch and release because family, even though said family is initiating the process for separation in the first place.

 

Congress should just get rid of the rule, appropriate a bit of money to temporarily house the families, and make the issue go away without demanding that a permanent loophole be created.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair? Come on! Release the immigrants into the population and have them not show up for their court dates? Even Jeff Flake tried to tell Obama that practice wasn't working because 90% of the illegals didn't show up for their court dates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the desire to keep one's borders and enforce immigration law with reasonable firmness, but surely there are less heavy handed ways to go about it. US immigration officials are coming out of this looking like the villains of a space opera, or a piece of dystopian fiction of some kind. Perhaps they can kick some puppies while they're at it? They seem like the sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Don't care what was going on in the past, just fix it now.

 

The only way I know of to really fix it is to reduce the pressure on the border and the system by getting the word out that there isn't a shortcut that comes with bringing a kid, being a kid, or saying the magic word "asylum". I think Ted Cruz had the best reaction, which was to introduce new legislation to double the number of judges to process the asylum claims, build new housing, keep families together, and set a goal of expediting the process down to two weeks.

 

Unfortunately, the desire for comprehensive always bogs things down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The word "explicit" means that they actually said that was the purpose. By all means, show me where the administration stated that stopping catch and release is about separating children from families.

 

Um, okay. Here's John Kelly (from March 2017 when he was HHS Secretary) saying he was considering adopting a policy of family separation as a deterrent:

 

Explicit.

 

I would think that it stems from the breathtakingly rational idea that asylum claims should be processed at the border.

 

Maybe that is a "breathtakingly rational idea." But what does the U.S. Code say about that? Let's see:

 

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 aliens status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title. [emphasis mine]

 

source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

 

Huh, that's weird. The Trump Administration says that immigrants should only make asylum claims at a port of arrival, when the U.S. Code clearly says anybody physically present in the United States may apply for asylum, whether or not they arrived at a designated port of arrival.

 

Weird that the Administration is publicly conflating the asylum issue while claiming to only be acting under current law. Its almost like... what the current law says isnt the primary catalyst here...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Explicit.

 

I can see where you would take it that way. My understanding is more along the lines of removing the catch and release policy, which would have the other result. Not that he was talking about separating the children as itself a deterrent.

 

I would have phrased it more along the lines of removing the incentive to bring a child to get a free pass into the country instead of deterrent.

 

 

 

Maybe that is a "breathtakingly rational idea." But what does the U.S. Code say about that?

 

I have no idea what that has to do with anything. Nobody is saying they're not allowed to apply for asylum and their claims are being processed. That's the whole snafu.

 

Wait, are you under the impression that part of the U.S. code means that claiming asylum after getting caught illegally entering the country is a get out of jail free card? Because it's not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People claiming asylum need to have their claims investigated. Where they're caught doesn't matter.

 

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 aliens status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People claiming asylum need to have their claims investigated. Where they're caught doesn't matter.

Again, I don't understand the point. The asylum claims are being processed. If they weren't, there wouldn't be anything to talk about because parents wouldn't be detained while waiting for the asylum claims to be resolved.

 

Seriously, I don't see what the purpose is of bringing up a law as there's nothing about the situation that runs contrary to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People claiming asylum need to have their claims investigated. Where they're caught doesn't matter.

Again, I don't understand the point. The asylum claims are being processed. If they weren't, there wouldn't be anything to talk about because parents wouldn't be detained while waiting for the asylum claims to be resolved.

 

Seriously, I don't see what the purpose is of bringing up a law as there's nothing about the situation that runs contrary to it.

They're being arrested and detained without cause. Showing up at the border isn't illegal. This administration is treating it like it's illegal though, and the zero-tolerance policy that is separating families is absolutely deliberate, not a "snafu" or a "snag". They want it to be a deterrent, and the Trump administration was talking about it in early 2017.

 

The border officials are lying to people, saying "the quota" is filled, or that they need visas to enter. You don't need paperwork to ask for asylum before you get here, and there are no quotas. So they get arrested and separated from their families because they showed up looking for safety.

 

The whole situation is heartless and cruel. Politically the optics are bad and so it's unsustainable - even Republicans won't be able to support tearing families apart for misdemeanors, not if they want to continue being the party of "family values" (though I think they've given that up long ago).

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...