Fantastic Forum the Original Art Bell's Midnight in the Desert and Coast to Coast AM Forum

Jon-Marcus wrote: ↑06-20-2018 06:35 AM

Doka wrote: ↑06-20-2018 02:32 AM
What do you think it would have been, like, after a year and half into Hillary??

THAT is nightmare I'd rather not contemplate.

We all know Hillary is nothing if not compassionate - Separating children from parents? Perish the thought! Something so cruel and inhuman should ever be contemplated - Of course, there are exceptions...

In certain situations, circumstances can warrant separation, such as a woman exercising freedom of choice. In her best interest. It's a health issue and that's all it is. Nothing more or less. Not at all cruel and inhuman.

Immigrant or otherwise, unwanted unborn children... er, fetal tissue masses should be granted a unconditional early release. Compassionate pregnancy termination is what civilized societies are all about

Riddick wrote: ↑06-20-2018 08:30 AM

Jon-Marcus wrote: ↑06-20-2018 06:35 AM

Doka wrote: ↑06-20-2018 02:32 AM
What do you think it would have been, like, after a year and half into Hillary??

THAT is nightmare I'd rather not contemplate.

We all know Hillary is nothing if not compassionate - Separating children from parents? Perish the thought! Something so cruel and inhuman should ever be contemplated - Of course, there are exceptions...

In certain situations, circumstances can warrant separation, such as a woman exercising freedom of choice. In her best interest. It's a health issue and that's all it is. Nothing more or less. Not at all cruel and inhuman.

Immigrant or otherwise, unwanted unborn children... er, fetal tissue masses should be granted a unconditional early release. Compassionate pregnancy termination is what civilized societies are all about

It's called, "defining the other" Riddick. Whether we're talking about ethnicities, cultures, religions, genders, society has been defining people and assigning them into groups beyond time.

In the example you gave, it is just another rationalization, in this case, to assign developing fetuses legal status. But, we've seen this same scenario played out over time, whether in gender roles, use and ownership of people as slaves, second-class citizenship status with native/ aboriginal peoples, voting issues and so on. Nothing new......

Snippet:

The Other is an individual who is perceived by the group as not belonging, as being different in some fundamental way. Any stranger becomes the Other. The group sees itself as the norm and judges those who do not meet that norm (that is, who are different in any way) as the Other. Perceived as lacking essential characteristics possessed by the group, the Other is almost always seen as a lesser or inferior being and is treated accordingly. The Other in a society may have few or no legal rights, may be characterized as less intelligent or as immoral, and may even be regarded as sub-human.
Otherness takes many forms. The Other may be someone who is of...
• a different race (White vs. non-White),
•a different nationality (Anglo Saxon vs. Italian),
•a different religion (Protestant vs. Catholic or Christian vs. Jew),
•a different social class (aristocrat vs. serf),
•a different political ideology (capitalism vs. communism),
•a different sexual orientation (heterosexual vs. homosexual),
•a different origin (native born vs. immigrant).
The Other is not necessarily a numerical minority. In a country defeated by an imperial power, the far more numerous natives become the Other, for example, the British rule in India where Indians outnumbered the British 4,000 to 1. Similarly, women are defined and judged by men, the dominant group, in relationship to themselves, so that they become the Other. Hence Aristotle says: "The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities; we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness."

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/engli ... other.html

Raggedyann wrote: ↑06-20-2018 03:09 AM Doka - The fake media examples you used are lame at best. Come on surely you can scrounge something up from the MAINSTREAM media?

Well..........Raggedyann, I don't know how much more MAINSTREAM Liberal than the Washington Post, Bezos, main Trump hateing, "leakers" almost as bad as the Huff Post that you are so fond of, and all this time I thought you where an "Informed" liberal, go figure

Well.....Doka, looks like the idiot is going to sign an executive order to undo his policy of ripping families apart. Sure shoots your nonsense down huh?

Raggedyann wrote: ↑06-20-2018 11:47 AM Well.....Doka, looks like the idiot is going to sign an executive order to undo his policy of ripping families apart. Sure shoots your nonsense down huh?

Sorry, I must. It's not Trump's policy. It was enacted by Bill Clinton in 1997 and continued by every administration since.
Where was the liberal indignation hiding for the past 20 years? Obama expanded the policy. Hillary Clinton supported and advocated the policy. Where was the Indignation then? Oh yes! Trump wasn't President then. It's all about trashing Trump.
Just MORE hate.

More brainwashed crap Jon Marcos. If Obama or Clinton had done the same thing, the right would have been all over it. And if Bush had done it the left would have treated him the same way they have treated Trump who is the only one to do it to push an agenda. Get real buddy.

-------------
"Obama generally refrained from prosecution in cases involving adults who crossed the border with their kids," said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. "In contrast, the current administration has chosen to prosecute adult border-crossers, even when they have kids. That's a choice — one fundamentally different from the choice made by both Obama and previous presidents of both parties."

Denise Gilman, a law professor who directs the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, said immigration attorneys "occasionally" saw separated families under the Obama administration.

"However, these families were usually reunited quite quickly once identified," she said, "even if that meant release of a parent from adult detention."

In Trump’s case, family separations are a feature, not a bug, of the administration’s border policies, said David Fitzgerald, who co-directs the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.

The family separations are not the small-scale collateral consequences of a border policy, but rather, a deliberate initiative," he added.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ilies-was/

Doris Meissner, the director of the US immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute. Meissner is also a former commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, where she served from 1993-2000.

Meissner: Before the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy, families arriving at the border without authorization to enter but claiming a credible fear if returned home were permitted to enter to apply for asylum. Whether or not they were detained while applying for asylum depended on a series of court rulings and legislation, in addition to the availability of detention bed space.

A 1997 court settlement agreed to by the US government in a case called Flores v. Reno, which remains in effect today, requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs willing to accept custody. If children cannot be released, Flores requires the government to hold them in the "least restrictive" setting available. The 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, signed by President George W. Bush, codified parts of the settlement into federal law.
In 2015, a federal judge in California ruled that the Flores requirements apply not only to unaccompanied minors but also to children apprehended with their parents, meaning that all minors must be released from detention if possible. The judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release parents detained along with their children. An appeals court in 2016 affirmed that Flores applied to all children but reversed the ruling that parents should be released as well.
Amid a surge in family flows, there were not enough detention beds available to hold families even for the 20 days allowed under the court settlement, causing many to be released. The family detention system currently has capacity to hold just 2,700 people at a time -- resulting in the "catch and release" that President Trump railed against in his election campaign and since.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics ... index.html

That's really strange. When I read you post I saw this; " Absolute tommy rot!!"
And when I hit reply or quote I saw this:
"
More brainwashed crap Jon Marcos. If Obama or Clinton had done the same thing, the right would have been all over it. And if Bush had done it the left would have treated him the same way they have treated Trump who is the only one to do it to push an agenda. Get real buddy.

-------------
"Obama generally refrained from prosecution in cases involving adults who crossed the border with their kids," said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. "In contrast, the current administration has chosen to prosecute adult border-crossers, even when they have kids. That's a choice — one fundamentally different from the choice made by both Obama and previous presidents of both parties."

Denise Gilman, a law professor who directs the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, said immigration attorneys "occasionally" saw separated families under the Obama administration.

"However, these families were usually reunited quite quickly once identified," she said, "even if that meant release of a parent from adult detention."

In Trump’s case, family separations are a feature, not a bug, of the administration’s border policies, said David Fitzgerald, who co-directs the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.

The family separations are not the small-scale collateral consequences of a border policy, but rather, a deliberate initiative," he added.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ilies-was/"

Ah well. I get it. Believe what you wish. The truth is out there. How's the weather up there in Canada?
By the way, It's Jon-MARCUS. Not Marcos. And I'm pretty sure I'm not your buddy.

Raggedyann wrote: ↑06-20-2018 02:33 PM Doris Meissner, the director of the US immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute. Meissner is also a former commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, where she served from 1993-2000.

Meissner: Before the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy, families arriving at the border without authorization to enter but claiming a credible fear if returned home were permitted to enter to apply for asylum. Whether or not they were detained while applying for asylum depended on a series of court rulings and legislation, in addition to the availability of detention bed space.

A 1997 court settlement agreed to by the US government in a case called Flores v. Reno, which remains in effect today, requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs willing to accept custody. If children cannot be released, Flores requires the government to hold them in the "least restrictive" setting available. The 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, signed by President George W. Bush, codified parts of the settlement into federal law.
In 2015, a federal judge in California ruled that the Flores requirements apply not only to unaccompanied minors but also to children apprehended with their parents, meaning that all minors must be released from detention if possible. The judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release parents detained along with their children. An appeals court in 2016 affirmed that Flores applied to all children but reversed the ruling that parents should be released as well.
Amid a surge in family flows, there were not enough detention beds available to hold families even for the 20 days allowed under the court settlement, causing many to be released. The family detention system currently has capacity to hold just 2,700 people at a time -- resulting in the "catch and release" that President Trump railed against in his election campaign and since.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics ... index.html

You're not helping your case. The article in your own post says 1997. That's the Clinton era.

Yeah and nothing changed until April when Trump issued his own cruel policy. Read it again.

Maybe this will make things easier to understand. Be sure to read the bold text.
----------------------

Trump Stops Separating Immigrant Families After Claiming He Couldn’t
‘We can’t do it through an executive order,’ he said last week of ending the practice. Today he signed an executive order doing just that.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday halting his administration’s separation of immigrant families, putting an end to a practice that caused international outrage and rare condemnation from both parties in Washington.

The order will keep parents and children detained together while they await deportation. Due to the high backlog of asylum cases, those detentions could be indefinite.

It’s a reversal for Trump, who said last week, “we can’t do it through an executive order.”

Thousands of children have been separated from their parents since April, when the administration implemented a “zero tolerance” policy for people entering the U.S. illegally. (That policy continues under Trump’s order.) The separations became highly visible this week after lawmakers and reporters revealed that adults and children were kept in cages in facilities in southern Texas. Elsewhere, children as young as a few months old were reportedly being held.

“I didn’t like the sight or the feeling of families being separated,” Trump said after signing the order.

It will likely create a new round of political, and legal, issues for the administration. The policy is expected to allow U.S. immigration agents to detain children with their families while the parents undergo criminal deportation proceedings. That could violate a 1997 court order that bars the federal government from detaining the children of illegal immigrants, and Trump’s move will likely be met by legal challenges.

On Capitol Hill, a successful legislative fix has become increasingly uncertain as Republicans and Democrats argue over tactics and policy, despite agreeing that the family-separation practice should end. In the wake of the executive order, Democrats immediately took issue with the idea that the detentions of immigrant families could be indefinite.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-sto ... t?ref=home

Raggedyann wrote: ↑06-20-2018 03:10 PM Yeah and nothing changed until May when Trump issued his own cruel policy. Read it again.

Have you noticed how quiet it's gotten on this thread? Kinda like the other folks are waiting to see if we digress to name-calling. But I won't go there. There are video recordings of Bill Clinton starting the policy, of Obama pushing the policy, and of Hillary endorsing the policy. There are versions of them making the rounds on Facebook right now. Yes the have been modified with Trump rolling his eyes at various points, but it's Bill, Obama, and Hillary's speeches. Look them up for yourself. Listen to what they said.
THEN tell me again that I'M brainwashed.
You've "known" me a long time. You should know better.

kbot wrote: ↑06-20-2018 11:07 AMIn the example you gave, it is just another rationalization, in this case, to assign developing fetuses legal status. But, we've seen this same scenario played out over time, whether in gender roles, use and ownership of people as slaves, second-class citizenship status with native/ aboriginal peoples, voting issues and so on. Nothing new......

Selective outrage is nothing new either......

Jon-Marcus

Only "engage" if you have a need to chew you own leg off, it is a learned lesson.

Doka wrote: ↑06-20-2018 05:21 PM Jon-Marcus

Only "engage" if you have a need to chew you own leg off, it is a learned lesson.

Yeah, I know. Sometimes I miss Rombaldi.