myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Immigration and children
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 38, 39, 40  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5209
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
NW and others keep claiming that they only hate “illegal” immigrants.

You can sit on your plate and eat at the same time, then you regurgitate.
"Hate"? And you accuse people, me being one, of putting words in your mouth, hypocrite.
F.O.!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 4980

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
NW and others keep claiming that they only hate “illegal” immigrants and defend the Trump administration’s immigration policies. My contention that the Trump administration has been lawless in their approach has now been admitted by the administration as they settle a lawsuit that gives people seeking asylum another shot. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/13/settlement-reached-in-family-separation-cases-more-than-1000-rejected-asylum-seekers-to-get-second-chance-if-court-approves/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.285d603e50c3

Mean, lawless and incompetent. But beloved by the fringe.



That's right, we love the fact we finally have a President that will protect our border. The vast majority want our borders protected, hardly the fringe...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11332
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
mac wrote:
NW and others keep claiming that they only hate “illegal” immigrants.

You can sit on your plate and eat at the same time, then you regurgitate.
"Hate"? And you accuse people, me being one, of putting words in your mouth, hypocrite.
F.O.!


NW would have us believe that his use of the epithet “illegal immigrants” without distinguishing asylum speakers is a loving term. Tell me NW, does anyone believe it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3160

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
NW would have us believe that his use of the epithet “illegal immigrants” without distinguishing asylum speakers is a loving term. Tell me NW, does anyone believe it?


Just so we are all correctly informed-------

Quote:

FACT CHECK: Do Asylum-Seekers Have To Illegally Enter The US?
9:47 AM 06/20/2018
Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter

Attorney Rabia Chaudry said in a tweet Sunday that people must be in the U.S. in order to apply for asylum, and that asylum-seekers on the southern border have to figure out how to get inside.
Verdict: False

People may apply for asylum at U.S. ports of entry without illegally entering the country.

Fact Check:

The Trump administration has faced backlash after increased prosecution of illegal immigrants at the southwest border led to the separation of migrant families. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen clarified the administration’s policies in several tweets Sunday, including its position on humanitarian protection in the form of asylum.

“If you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry,” Nielsen said.

Chaudry, who gained notoriety after NPR’s “Serial” series highlighted the case of her friend, Adnan Syed, responded to the tweet. “You cannot apply for asylum unless you are in the US. There is no visa allowing you to enter to apply for it. You have to figure out how to get inside to apply, ie crossing the border,” she tweeted, and called Nielsen a “liar.”

Individuals may apply for asylum at a port of entry without illegally entering the country. While the law allows people illegally in the U.S. to apply for asylum, they do not have to “figure out how to get inside” before applying.

“You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States,” the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website states. “You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status and within one year of your arrival to the United States.”

Nielsen reiterated at the White House press briefing Monday that asylum-seekers do not have to cross the border illegally. “You do not need to break the law of the United States to seek asylum,” she said. “DHS is not separating families legitimately seeking asylum at ports of entry. If an adult enters at a port of entry and claims asylum, they will not face prosecution for illegal entry.”


When an "asylum speakers" are caught sneaking across the border and only then claim asylum, they are illegal, but can still apply for asylum if it's within one year of their illegal entry.

http://checkyourfact.com/2018/06/20/fact-check-asylum-seekers-illegal-entry/


Last edited by techno900 on Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11332
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The treatment of children is the theme of this thread, and the basis of my concern. On Friday night I helped celebrate the renaming of the school in my neighborhood to the Sylvia Mendez school. It is indeed all about protecting the rights of children--a concept lost or deliberately ignored by the Trump administration.

Sylvia Mendez was the subject of a lawsuit, Mendez v. Westminster, that challenged the Orange County city's practice of barring children of Mexican descent from the best public schools. http://sylviamendezinthemendezvswestminster.com/aboutus.html

She is still alive and was present at the ceremony. Because of the lawsuit, Sylvia and her sister went on to college--and contributed far more to society, including taxes, than they would have without a better education. This was the first case barring discrimination in schooling, and paved the way for Brown v. Board of Education, the more famous case that extended rights to African Americans. The unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals held:

Quote:
By enforcing the segregation of school children of Mexican descent against their will and contrary to the laws of California, respondents have violated the federal law as provided in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution by depriving them of liberty and property without due process of law and by denying to them the equal protection of the laws.
61 F.2d 774 (1947) WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DIST. OF ORANGE COUNTY et al. v. MENDEZ et al.

There is an interesting discussion of the rights of school children in the September 10 New Yorker that overlooks this case, but specifically deals with the efforts of some states like Texas to deny undocumented immigrant children a public education. The seminal case in this respect is Plyer v. Doe, was decided by the Supreme Court, in a decision that denying children an opportunity for a public education was a violation of the 14th amendment. From a summary of the case:

Quote:
...the Court concluded that the Texas legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court explained that "education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society" and "provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all." Further, while persuasive arguments support the view that a state may withhold benefits from people whose presence within the country is a result of unlawful conduct, the children of such illegal entrants "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status," and "legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."

While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from an influx of illegal immigrants, there was no evidence to suggest that any immigrants came to the country to avail themselves of a free education. Similarly, while the state has an interest in removing burdens on the state's ability to provide high-quality public education, there was no evidence that the exclusion of undocumented children was likely to improve the overall quality of education in Texas.


None of the children seized by the Trump administration have been allowed access to education. Hundreds are still separated and some are lost in the system.

The issue here is one that is fundamental to what conservatives used to support--Constitutional rights and freedoms. There is no apparent concern that denying young children, and often their parents, due process rights is antithetical to decades of conservative thinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5209
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
nw30 wrote:
mac wrote:
NW and others keep claiming that they only hate “illegal” immigrants.

You can sit on your plate and eat at the same time, then you regurgitate.
"Hate"? And you accuse people, me being one, of putting words in your mouth, hypocrite.
F.O.!


NW would have us believe that his use of the epithet “illegal immigrants” without distinguishing asylum speakers is a loving term. Tell me NW, does anyone believe it?

You constantly denigrate anyone with a conservative bent on things here, using all your favorite "ism" labels , combined with the "hate" label, it's your M.O.
And yet you try to come off as some sort of intellectual liberal who knows the only truth.
Net result, you cancel yourself out with that M.O.,,,, along with Dean.

If this country was made up with nothing but macs and Deans, we would have been destroyed long ago, made into just another 3rd world remnant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bluefish1



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1102

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Linking Mac and Dean is like linking you and Matty. Not sure you want that NW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11332
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW, are you really this thick?

Quote:
You constantly denigrate anyone with a conservative bent on things here, using all your favorite "ism" labels , combined with the "hate" label, it's your M.O.
And yet you try to come off as some sort of intellectual liberal who knows the only truth.
Net result, you cancel yourself out with that M.O.,,,, along with Dean


The conservative viewpoint used to be about minimizing government and maximizing personal liberties. The sad fact is that the conservative viewpoint is essentially dead within the GOP, as shown by the departure of George Will and his urging voters to vote for Democrats. As John Boehner has said, there is no Republican party any more, there is only the party of Trump.

During the Obama administration, there were legitimate criticisms of Obama's continuation of Bush surveillance and drone strikes. The FISA courts continued, and those of us who opposed those things were more than a bit discomfited. But Trump, and his apologists like Nunes, have taken those things to a new level. At its core, the idea of chanting "lock her up", particularly after 18 investigations, is a refutation of the rights of the accused and of due process. The rule of law and due process would be completely dead if Trump had his way.

In the current thread, the angry description of anyone crossing the border without papers as "illegals" fits neatly within this viewpoint. It is not merely that the term is pejorative and a dog whistle--every time your repeat it. It is that you can't tell who is in the country illegally without affording them due process. Even where parents have crossed the border illegally, with no legitimate asylum claim, their children have some rights. Certainly closing the ports of entry, separating children from their parents without due process, ignoring the court settlement under the Obama administration about how detainees were to be treated, all fall into the arena of authoritarianism, not protection of liberties or respect for due process.

You don't pen something thoughtful like Techno, to the effect that not all who cross can claim they are seeking asylum. It wasn't necessary to disagree with Techno--he made a valid point. You simply screech "illegals" at every opportunity.

True conservatives used to stand as a force against the abuses of government. Now those who call themselves conservatives stand as a force in favor of Trump's abuses of government. None of you are actually conservative. I do certainly denigrate people with no coherent viewpoint who hide their authoritarianism behind the term conservative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9153

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation"


Well techno900, the above tells us all more about your fact check article. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are fishing in that questionable pool for anything credible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3160

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Posted before, but liberals will ignore.

IRS definition of Immigrant:
Quote:

Immigrant:
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Such an individual is also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.

According to Webster:
Quote:
Immigration definition is - an act or instance of immigrating; specifically : travel into a country for the purpose of permanent residence there.

Anyone with common sense would assume that illegally sneaking into the US is not the way to achieve permanent residence, at least by legal standards. Liberals will think differently.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 38, 39, 40  Next
Page 39 of 40

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group