lets tilt all the checks and balences in one direction, champion the rights of people to be mean to others and harass, joke about becoming president for life, buddy up to unsavory foreign leaders, fuck with peoples minds by giving them legal weed yay! then when they're on your side...slip the noose. Maybe presidents shouldn't have two terms how about four again like FDR? why have limits at all? all branches of government agree shake hands boom its law. whats next? postpone elections a bit....its not the right time....we have issues to sort out....tighten the noose, whats wrong sjws? people are just making jokes right? it's not energizing anthing....especially not angry desperate disenfranchised citizens...who will hapilly vote for anything if it means getting their agenda forwarded... and then the floor drops out from under you. before you know it.....the government has become facist.
No, the government has started actually enforcing the laws on the books. Ones that BOTH parties passed.
Actually the laws on the books say that you can cross the boarder anywhere as long as you report to the authorities upon arrival. And that if you are not an immediate threat you cannot be detained without due process. That's the actual law.
Signed into law by Jimmy Carter
Your reference is to a UN Convention, Vic. You should try reading it sometime.
"Despite this provision, asylum seekers are placed in detention facilities throughout Europe, North America, and Australia, owing to their illegal entry or presence. In its July 2000 review of reception standards for asylum seekers in the European Union, UNHCR found several different types of detention in operation, including detention at border points or in airport transit areas, and that the grounds for detention also vary. For example, refugees and asylum seekers may be detained at the ‘pre-admission’ phase, because of false documents or lack of proper documentation, or they may be held in anticipation of deportation or transfer to a ‘safe third country’, for example, under the provisions of the Dublin Convention. Several countries have no limit on the maximum period of detention, including Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, while others provide maximum periods and require release if no decision on admission or removal has been taken."
I read it. That doesn't change the fact that Carter signed it, making it US law.
Then give a reference to said law, why don'tcha?
According to Article 1 of the 1951 UN Convention, as modified by the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is defined as a person who ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.’ This definition implies that several qualifying conditions apply to be considered a refugee: (1) presence outside home country; (2) well-founded fear of persecution (being at risk of harm is insufficient reason in the absence of discriminatory persecution); (3) incapacity to enjoy the protection of one’s own state from the persecution feared. The definition of refugees was actually intended to exclude internally displaced persons, economic migrants, victims of natural disasters, and persons fleeing violent conflict but not subject to discrimination amounting to persecution.
International refugee law or international human rights treaties neither articulate an explicit entitlement to asylum for the individuals concerned, nor impose an obligation on states to grant asylum. Individuals have a right to seek asylum, not to be granted asylum, and the states have the right to grant asylum, but no obligation. The Geneva Convention does not guarantee asylum-seekers the right to be granted refugee status, even if they fulfil the conditions to be considered refugees; this remains at state discretion.
Entering a state party to the Convention unlawfully does not forfeit protection (Article 31) and illegal entrants can still qualify as refugees if they fulfil the relevant criteria. ‘Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge’ should not be punished for their illegal entry if they come directly from the territory where their life and freedom was threatened and if they report themselves immediately to the authorities, showing good reason for their illegal entry (Article 31). Restrictions on their movement can be imposed until their status is regularised. To ‘refugees lawfully in the territory,’ Article 26 of the Convention grants the right to choose their residence and to move freely. The UNHCR considers that detention of asylum-seekers should be a measure of last resort. It has drafted a set of guidelines for the use of detention of asylum-seekers. In certain countries, refugees are confined to refugee camps and their movement is restricted. In other countries, including in many developed countries, detention of irregular migrants until their status as refugees is determined is a common practice.
The vast majority of these people, while entitled to apply for asylum, simply do not qualify as "refugees", Vic.
I agree. They probably shouldn't and won't receive asylum. Fine. Follow the law. There is no need to restrict their movements beyond perhaps an ankle monitor. Certainly don't take their babies with no records as to where they were sent.
‘Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge’ should not be punished for their illegal entry if they come directly from the territory where their life and freedom was threatened and if they report themselves immediately to the authorities, showing good reason for their illegal entry (Article 31).
That's not happening, Vic, and you know it.
None of the people in detention meet that definition? I did not know that. None. Those that come from mexico and report to the authorities seeking asylum still have their kids. Did not know that either.
I guess you're right then. Take away their kids and send them thousands of miles aways with sketchy records as to where they are and no plan to reunite them with their parent. Sounds fair.
Neither of us knows the exact status of each and every illegal caught crossing the border, Vic. But I am curious as to what persecution based upon race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion Mexico is inflicting upon its citizens. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
I already agreed you were right and that the tactic you seem to condone is probably fair given their lack of persecution and all.
What I condone is to stop incentivizing people putting children in danger. Which is precisely what a lax policy of catch and release for all with children in tow does.
Tell the dead Texas farmers.
So in the absence of positions worth supporting, we're now settling for "no other president supports Trump" (openly) as a bona-fide.
That's really something...
Simmer down... I'm not "the left" and I support unrestricted right of all humans to keep and bear arms.
Yes, simmer down, this isn't a renaissance faire. It's not that serious...
Good luck with all that...
Defend her wardrobe choice? Anybody can wear whatever the heck they want, period... defended.
As for you're implied deeper meaning, people are using their predetermined biased to assume who her audience is... those assumptions could very well be wrong.
After all, it's been reported that Melania and Ivanka were the ones pushing to change the policy... so, if true, then clearly she does care about that issue/audience. So it's probably a different issue/audience.
I love their response to the willfully ignorant:
Despite her wearing a jacket that literally sends a message, people shouldn't read some bigger meaning into it.
I REALLY DON'T CARE. DO U?
Don't care one bit and the ones making a big deal about it is the usual drama production.
I'm pretty sure that jacket she wore, was telling the media she doesn't care what they think about her choice of clothing..
"Fresh drama is being serve, single line if you're buying, please!".
I think it was an odd wardrobe choice, for the start of that particular mission. I have no idea, of course, just why she chose to wear it.
That's the whole game. We're to believe Trump's an fuckin' enigma when it comes to his policy / agenda, but we're to ignore the obvious daily 'fuck you's' because taking them a face value would be overly paranoid, ya know... lol
How could anyone possibly believe that about Donald Trump, I wonder. His current wife is far less transparent, seems to me.
No one actually believes it, but it is definitely what the camp aspires to project. Like "covefefe," that was the best illustration to date. That couldn't be an obvious, but harmless mistake, it had to be a premeditated psychological game.
This was a desperate attempt to distract and play the victim all at the same time.
True, and it's sadly and almost amusing...sometimes.
I used to find it comical, now it just makes me sad for the younger gen that will be stuck with the mess and ill equipped to deal with it because they were robbed of a proper education.
I do not find many things this president and his administration are doing remotely comical. I haven't with most past presidents, either, some things. The defense of and conflicting statements about this president and what he says are sometimes almost amusing to me, though.
Are his "tweets" official statements of what he means, as has been stated by some of his spokespersons? Or is it just "sarcasm", "joking" or some clever strategy, one might wonder. I do not.
I can understand your concern for the younger generation, Tink.
He's an obviously conflicted person. I sometimes wonder if even he understands what he means.
I've noticed a common thread among the Trump supporters I personally know irl that's disturbing for coming gens. They typically fall into two camps. Camp 1: "The end is near" and Camp 2: "I don't care so long as my SS checks continue, I'm dying soon anyway."
Discouraging. Either waiting to die or waiting to kill. Seems like a pathetic existence, you know?
Well, he does seem to lack understanding of many things...no doubt. “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated”, for instance. Oh brother.
I don't know very many Trump supporters personally. Not people I spend much time around, anyway.
Those attitudes are discouraging, yes. I've always figured that the "I don't care as long as ____"one, has to be a far simpler existence than actually caring about things that don't have a direct negative impact on one's own life.
I'd settle for he or his die-hards exhibiting a desire to learn, you know. I won't knock someone for genuine ignorance, provided they're willing to learn.
I've encountered many irl because, well, I'm in Texas and I'm more active in my community than in the past. It's mostly for my son, either through the school or his extra-curriculars. But that's where I get to know them and I have tried to actually get to know them. I observe them and there are a few that concern me, in all seriousness.
And yes, it's because I do care. It does complicate things... greatly. But it isn't something you can turn off, as I'm sure you know.
And I want my kid to care too, I want him to realize that not only do his decisions affect the lives of others, his ignorance does. I want him to choose to learn even if the truth conflicts with his desires or beliefs. Because a lot of these problems would benefit from that approach. Whether or not it works out that way, that will remain to be seen. lol
As usual, Vic, you and Acosta are not telling the whole truth. Melania wore that jacket when she got on the plane, and later when she deplaned after the return flight, but was not wearing it "to see" or "to visit" the kids.
Snopes got it right in their headline, although not in their subheading.
Even CNN got it right, at least in this piece.
The fact that she would deign to wear that jacket at the height of this controversial even for a one minute photo-op, and that you and other would dismiss it as a fashion choice is proof to me that this nation is overrun by white supremist, many of which dwell here.
I agree that the optics of the choice were not good, given the fuss liberals would make over it, including the predictable exaggerations by the likes of Acosta and you, Vic.
It was an excellent choice. It worked as planned, drive a wedge deeper, solidify the base, get ready for the showdown.
Pure baloney, Vic, as usual on your part.
It solidified the lib base much more than the con base.
Duhhhhn duhnnnnnn. duhhhhhhnnnnnnn!!! Drama.. served fresh and hot.
Defense: When I buy her clothes I can tell her what to wear, not before.
If this is true, than this is just another what I'd like to call "dog whistles" when confronted about it you can easily defend it as saying oh i just threw it on. But if you're paying attention you fucking know damn well what it means
It appears to be accurate with multiple media outlets confirming.
thats upsetting. For a moment I thought she may have had a heart
TBJ I think she wore it because she is a typical good looking woman- her head is as empty as a used up oyster shell. It might mean something to her but it certainly isn't something anyone with a brain would wear while on official business.
No...not fake news. She wore that very jacket. And the conversation is about living, breathing, children. Not embryos.
It is sad to me that a large part of the American population would find this political stunt not only acceptable but amusing.
As you pointed out Gronk, this was a calculated (and successful) ploy to anger the left and cheer Trump's base who really do not care what happens to to children. Congratulations on choosing a side.
It shows a complete lack of thought.. not unusual in the Trump family.
That woman shouldn't even be here let alone married to the president - I wonder if he ordered her online
I know she is legal, but far as I know she has no way to support herself when they get divorced.
Started in 2015 and continues under Trump and involves MS 13 members?
Actually started in 2007, Vic, but the Media Establishment didn't care for much of the time since then, for obvious reasons.
They only affect to care now, and are falling all over themselves to pile on, for equally obvious reasons.
From your own reference, Vic:
"The Shenandoah detention center was built by a coalition of seven nearby towns and counties to lock up local kids charged with serious crimes. Since 2007, about half the 58 beds are occupied by male and female immigrants between the ages of 12 and 17 facing deportation proceedings or awaiting rulings on asylum claims. Though incarcerated in a facility similar to a prison, the children detained on administrative immigration charges have not yet been convicted of any crime."
The strapping and bagging wasn't noted until 2015.
Hmm... no one "noted" for 8 years.
Because conservatives don't care.
I didn't know Obama was a conservative.
I learn something new every day.
Besides, I thought there was a law (since the Carter administration) banning that kind of thing, if you are to be believed.
What Obama did was illegal then. He's not there anymore. Stop Trump from doing it again. Only someone with heinous intend would allow a repeat of Obama's sins.
I was wrong not to attempt to stop Obama, but now I must stop Trump
You didn't attempt to stop Obama because he was your swine rather than their swine.
If Hillary were now president, you wouldn't be trying to stop her either. Heck, you wouldn't even be reading about it in the MSM; they'd be protecting her, as they did the big 0.
So you are going to let Trump do it to punish Me? Ruin the lives of innocent children so you can write poems and hurt my feelings.
Maybe she, as a legal immigrant, doesn't care; and I don't blame her.
I don't give a crap about them, their kids, or their sob stories that all begin with "asylum". They claim to be seeking asylum. From what? Legal and democratic elections? A booming tourism industry? A year round growing climate? There is no war, no genocide, no nuclear bomb blast to escape. They claim to want freedom, I say they just want FREE (health care, housing, food, money, etc, etc.)
I was glad she went to see what was going on, I have no idea why she would wear a jacket like that on a hot day ( 81 degrees).... that was in poor taste. But as usual, it was a distraction from the real issue at hand....the migrant children.
Mrs. Trump changed into a pale yellow jacket before the plane landed in McAllen, Texas, for a visit to the Upbring New Hope Children's Center, which houses 55 migrant children. But even after questions arose about her attire, Mrs. Trump was back in the green jacket when she returned to Washington in 80-degree weather. She has shown that she won't bow to public pressure or expectations about how she should comport herself as first lady.
The parents know what will happen to the kids, they don't care.
They were hoping the kids would play on peoples emotions and get them (the parents) in...that's what they care about.
Mexico didn't give a damn about them or their kids and allowed them, like they allow all illegals, to slip through their country
I'm waiting for a law to pass, that all people being arrested, no matter what law they break, will have their kids stay with them while being locked up.
If that's a law for illegals, then its good for regular citizens too.
Probably have to start putting jail cells in Holiday Inns.
Yes Vic, she wore the jacket.
She wore it on the plane down to visit the border, and on the way home. She did not wear it while off the plane.
Of course you and the left ilk will believe that she means to say she doesn't care about the kids.
Think what you want. Make it a mid-term ad! No one cares about your constant bitching anymore - including the first lady!