UJRefugees.net

Stapes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:33 pm No children are in cages Mr. Chairman. Secretary Nielsen.


Okay lets just call them kennels then

You realize those "cages" were in use under Barry too, right?

Secretary Nielsen says no

Yes. I'm talking about Kirstjen Nielsen unblinkingly lying at a border security hearing today.

“I’ve seen the cages, I just want you to admit the cages exist,” Rep. Bernie Thompson declared.

“Sir, they’re not cages, they are areas of the border facility that are carved out for the safety and protection of those who remain there while they’re being processed,” explained Homeland Security Chief Kirstjen Nielsen.

“What is a chain link fence enclosed into a chamber on a concrete floor? A cage?” asked Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman.

“It’s a detention space, ma’am,” Nielsen replied.

“Is it different from what you put dogs in?” the congresswoman countered.

“Yes,” Nielsen said.

“In what sense?” Coleman asked.

“It’s larger,” the Homeland Security chief continued.

“Sounds like a dog cage,” Coleman said.

Again, you realize those were in use under Barry too, right? Where was your outrage then?

U.S. Arrests Record Number of Families at Southern Border
Numbers traveling in family groups since October exceeds record for a full, 12-month period

https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-migra ... 1551810657

SCARY FAMILIES

captquint wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:23 pm


SCARY FAMILIES

Maybe some are but all are definately illegal. lolz.

The Trump Administration is openly illegal

When people quibble over whether to call it a cage, or a pen, or a cell, I don't see the point? That seems like more spin than news. These cages, or pens, are for detaining people who were caught entering illegally.
They have to be detained in SOME way, what would those of you who oppose it recommend to replace these cages?

Looking at the cages is missing the point, of course they've always been used. The difference was in policy, under past administrations they tried to minimise the time children held, and ensure families were held together. Trump decided to intentionally take people's children as a deterrent, and hold children and families as long as they could get away with it. Those are very different approaches, and trump did set up concentration camps, but the basic facilities other than the new camps were the same.

As was the Messiah’s. What’s the point?

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:21 pm Looking at the cages is missing the point, of course they've always been used. The difference was in policy, under past administrations they tried to minimise the time children held, and ensure families were held together. Trump decided to intentionally take people's children as a deterrent, and hold children and families as long as they could get away with it. Those are very different approaches, and trump did set up concentration camps, but the basic facilities over than the new camps were the same.

Presumably, Trump is trying to discourage illegals from using children as a "get out of jail free" card. And sometimes they even have to determine if the children do in fact belong to the parents.
The point is, if he is within the law, and it's a strategy to reduce illegal immigration in the future, then I'm for it. Children have been and will continue to be detained. We can't put them up in 4 star hotels. Probably a lot of them are already living better than they did in their home countries.

concentration camps...

Way to diminish Nazi evil you putz.

VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:29 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:21 pm Looking at the cages is missing the point, of course they've always been used. The difference was in policy, under past administrations they tried to minimise the time children held, and ensure families were held together. Trump decided to intentionally take people's children as a deterrent, and hold children and families as long as they could get away with it. Those are very different approaches, and trump did set up concentration camps, but the basic facilities over than the new camps were the same.

Presumably, Trump is trying to discourage illegals from using children as a "get out of jail free" card. And sometimes they even have to determine if the children do in fact belong to the parents.
The point is, if he is within the law, and it's a strategy to reduce illegal immigration in the future, then I'm for it. Children have been and will continue to be detained. We can't put them up in 4 star hotels. Probably a lot of them are already living better than they did in their home countries.

He was not within the law, he lost several legal challenges before backing down in the face of overwhelming public opinion. Children can only be held up to 20 days for initial processing under the Flores ruling. Trump's attempted workaround is isolated concentration camps they are technically free to leave but don't, because they are helpless children.

Your strategy of taking children away from their parents to try and scare the parents into not making legal asylum claims is not legal. And it makes you a bit of a cunt frankly. Just not a nice thing to do.

Charliesheen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:33 pm concentration camps...

Way to diminish Nazi evil you putz.

Get a dictionary.

VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:05 pm When people quibble over whether to call it a cage, or a pen, or a cell, I don't see the point? That seems like more spin than news. These cages, or pens, are for detaining people who were caught entering illegally.
They have to be detained in SOME way, what would those of you who oppose it recommend to replace these cages?

Moats filled with crocodiles, poisonous jellyfish, piranha, and toxic waste from Al Gore's coal mine.

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:41 pm

VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:29 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:21 pm Looking at the cages is missing the point, of course they've always been used. The difference was in policy, under past administrations they tried to minimise the time children held, and ensure families were held together. Trump decided to intentionally take people's children as a deterrent, and hold children and families as long as they could get away with it. Those are very different approaches, and trump did set up concentration camps, but the basic facilities over than the new camps were the same.

Presumably, Trump is trying to discourage illegals from using children as a "get out of jail free" card. And sometimes they even have to determine if the children do in fact belong to the parents.
The point is, if he is within the law, and it's a strategy to reduce illegal immigration in the future, then I'm for it. Children have been and will continue to be detained. We can't put them up in 4 star hotels. Probably a lot of them are already living better than they did in their home countries.

He was not within the law, he lost several legal challenges before backing down in the face of overwhelming public opinion. Children can only be held up to 20 days for initial processing under the Flores ruling. Trump's attempted workaround is isolated concentration camps they are technically free to leave but don't, because they are helpless children.

Your strategy of taking children away from their parents to try and scare the parents into not making legal asylum claims is not legal. And it makes you a bit of a cunt frankly. Just not a nice thing to do.

It’s not my strategy. Findings of law can go up to the Supreme Court before they are resolved. The court of public opinion (and resulting party pressure) can be more effective.
The cunt thing I can do without. This nation has the right to secure its borders, as does any other sovereign nation. The alternative would be to, what... release them within the U.S.?

In WWII The Russians just ran a perimeter of barbed wire in a field and stuck The Germans in it.

VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:05 am

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:41 pm

VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:29 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:21 pm Looking at the cages is missing the point, of course they've always been used. The difference was in policy, under past administrations they tried to minimise the time children held, and ensure families were held together. Trump decided to intentionally take people's children as a deterrent, and hold children and families as long as they could get away with it. Those are very different approaches, and trump did set up concentration camps, but the basic facilities over than the new camps were the same.

Presumably, Trump is trying to discourage illegals from using children as a "get out of jail free" card. And sometimes they even have to determine if the children do in fact belong to the parents.
The point is, if he is within the law, and it's a strategy to reduce illegal immigration in the future, then I'm for it. Children have been and will continue to be detained. We can't put them up in 4 star hotels. Probably a lot of them are already living better than they did in their home countries.

He was not within the law, he lost several legal challenges before backing down in the face of overwhelming public opinion. Children can only be held up to 20 days for initial processing under the Flores ruling. Trump's attempted workaround is isolated concentration camps they are technically free to leave but don't, because they are helpless children.

Your strategy of taking children away from their parents to try and scare the parents into not making legal asylum claims is not legal. And it makes you a bit of a cunt frankly. Just not a nice thing to do.

It’s not my strategy. Findings of law can go up to the Supreme Court before they are resolved. The court of public opinion (and resulting party pressure) can be more effective.
The cunt thing I can do without. This nation has the right to secure its borders, as does any other sovereign nation. The alternative would be to, what... release them within the U.S.?

You just stated you supported the strategy of taking children away from parents as a deterrent. Cunty is the only apt description for that. Releasing them within the US to family or foster care, with a court date to appear, is in fact the alternative. The other legal alternative would be to speed up court processes by putting more resources in, so they would not need to be held for more than 20 days before a hearing.

analhamster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:11 am

VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:05 am

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:41 pm

VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:29 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:21 pm Looking at the cages is missing the point, of course they've always been used. The difference was in policy, under past administrations they tried to minimise the time children held, and ensure families were held together. Trump decided to intentionally take people's children as a deterrent, and hold children and families as long as they could get away with it. Those are very different approaches, and trump did set up concentration camps, but the basic facilities over than the new camps were the same.

Presumably, Trump is trying to discourage illegals from using children as a "get out of jail free" card. And sometimes they even have to determine if the children do in fact belong to the parents.
The point is, if he is within the law, and it's a strategy to reduce illegal immigration in the future, then I'm for it. Children have been and will continue to be detained. We can't put them up in 4 star hotels. Probably a lot of them are already living better than they did in their home countries.

He was not within the law, he lost several legal challenges before backing down in the face of overwhelming public opinion. Children can only be held up to 20 days for initial processing under the Flores ruling. Trump's attempted workaround is isolated concentration camps they are technically free to leave but don't, because they are helpless children.

Your strategy of taking children away from their parents to try and scare the parents into not making legal asylum claims is not legal. And it makes you a bit of a cunt frankly. Just not a nice thing to do.

It’s not my strategy. Findings of law can go up to the Supreme Court before they are resolved. The court of public opinion (and resulting party pressure) can be more effective.
The cunt thing I can do without. This nation has the right to secure its borders, as does any other sovereign nation. The alternative would be to, what... release them within the U.S.?

You just stated you supported the strategy of taking children away from parents as a deterrent. Cunty is the only apt description for that. Releasing them within the US to family or foster care, with a court date to appear, is in fact the alternative. The other legal alternative would be to speed up court processes by putting more resources in, so they would not need to be held for more than 20 days before a hearing.

I’m all for speeding up the process, but not a fan of releasing them with a court date. The reason I don’t go for name calling is that I’m a grown man on the internet. Accomplishments and hash marks up to my neck. It’s not my style to argue by attack, or really respond to same. Twenty years ago, sure, but not today.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4328 ... y-invasion


So they are coming to kill nazis? Well, fucking good.

They are not fit as parents. Breaking laws as a path of least resistance to sidestep the process others follow legally.

They need to be disincentivized. If they really do care for their children. If theirs at all.

Charliesheen wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:54 am They are not fit as parents. Breaking laws as a path of least resistance to sidestep the process others follow legally.

They need to be disincentivized. If they really do care for their children. If theirs at all.

Kind of makes you wonder what kind of shitty situation they are fleeing from then, eh chuck? But that would require compassion and a brain that wasn't dry-rotted from Breitbart and rush Limbaugh.