New Border rule Children can be held indefinitely, No Flu Vaccines

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
"The Trump administration is reportedly set to announce a rule change which would allow the government to hold migrant families in detention camps indefinitely.

Currently, children crossing illegally into the US from Mexico can generally be held for a maximum of 20 days, a limit Donald Trump has blamed for encouraging undocumented families to arrive at the border.

Under the new rule, which would likely require court approval, the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) could hold children in detention for the entirety of their immigration proceedings, which can take months or even years. "

The possible holding of children indefinitely comes following an announcement by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it will not vaccinate migrant families in detention ahead of this year’s flu season.

Having gone years under Barack Obama without any deaths of children while in US immigration custody, at least three juveniles have died in detention facilities in the past year alone under the Trump administration, doctors have said.

Earlier this year, Trump administration lawyers unsuccessfully argued in court it should be able to force detained migrant children to sleep on concrete floors and deprive them of soap and toothbrushes, in what amounted to another challenge to the 1997 Jenny Lisette Flores v Edwin Meese settlement.



1. It's very telling that in the last few weeks I have seen many stories of Farmers and truckers saying they can no longer support Trump because they are feeling the sting of his poor decision in their wallet. Unfortunately toruting children wasn't enough to make them say that.

2. People like Thisperson have repeatedly claimed that it was okay to seperate children for a short period of time and now i am sure he will come up with some excuse as to why this further torture of children is justified.

3. Also not providing Flu vaccines to a group of people in close quarters without basic hygiene and sanitation is a recipe for disaster

 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
Having gone years under Barack Obama without any deaths of children while in US immigration custody, at least three juveniles have died in detention facilities in the past year alone under the Trump administration, doctors have said.
None of the deaths during Trump's term were due to the conditions of the centers. Conversely, almost 10 of the 18 deaths under Obama were due to the conditions Obama's DHS established.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
2. People like Thisperson have repeatedly claimed that it was okay to operate children for a short period of time and now i am sure he will come up with some excuse as to why this further torture of children is justified.
I have never accepted medical testing on children - let alone operations. I've NEVER thought of sleeping on the floor as "torture". If you can find a good reason to justify that statement, you should contact virtually every kindergarten in the nation who has kids take their naps on the floor.

3. Also not providing Flu vaccines to a group of people in close quarters without basic hygiene and sanitation is a recipe for disaster
What other forced medical procedures do you accept on detainees?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I have never accepted medical testing on children - let alone operations. I've NEVER thought of sleeping on the floor as "torture". If you can find a good reason to justify that statement, you should contact virtually every kindergarten in the nation who has kids take their naps on the floor.



What other forced medical procedures do you accept on detainees?

Providing them to those who want them is not a forced medical procedure.

Why cant you defend the decisions you support without chaining the meaning .

Because you are immoral
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why cant you understand the topic being discussed. CHILDREN
That's YOUR topic. MY topic is "who's responsible?" Obama was responsible for those deaths, Trump was not.

I do not believe adults' lives are worth less than children's lives.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Providing them to those who want them is not a forced medical procedure.

Why cant you defend the decisions you support without chaining the meaning .

Because you are immoral
If they want them, surely they are welcome to go pay for them, or get them in their home country. :buddies:
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
If they want them, surely they are welcome to go pay for them, or get them in their home country. :buddies:

How do children pay for vaccines when separated from their families? Do you want the children to walk home unaccompanied?

And again you ignore all of the Asylum seekers not breaking any laws. Why would they go to their home country they are seeking asylum from?

Are you really this myopic?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
How do children pay for vaccines when separated from their families? Do you want the children to walk home unaccompanied?
I'd suggest they not be pushed out of their families.

And again you ignore all of the Asylum seekers not breaking any laws. Why would they go to their home country they are seeking asylum from?
Maybe they could do it before they come here?

The asylum-seekers who are seen at the border are, for the most part, not detained. They are only detained if they are national security risks or flight risks, but you know that because you've had it shown to you repeatedly.

Asylum seekers that are caught as illegal aliens and decide at that point they are asylum seekers are still illegal aliens before asylum seekers, so they are indeed breaking laws. But, you know that, because you've had it shown to you repeatedly.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I'd suggest they not be pushed out of their families.


Maybe they could do it before they come here?

The asylum-seekers who are seen at the border are, for the most part, not detained. They are only detained if they are national security risks or flight risks, but you know that because you've had it shown to you repeatedly.

Asylum seekers that are caught as illegal aliens and decide at that point they are asylum seekers are still illegal aliens before asylum seekers, so they are indeed breaking laws. But, you know that, because you've had it shown to you repeatedly.

As usual you lie.

remember lat week when the criteria was that they were only being detained for a brief period of time while awaiting a decision. Now that Trump and co are planning to allow indefinite detention in inhumane conditions your tune has changed and you continue to defend the policies of someone who you continuously claim to "not really support"

How does it feel to have no backbone?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
As usual you lie.

remember lat week when the criteria was that they were only being detained for a brief period of time while awaiting a decision. Now that Trump and co are planning to allow indefinite detention in inhumane conditions your tune has changed and you continue to defend the policies of someone who you continuously claim to "not really support"

How does it feel to have no backbone?
I can't help your bad memory. It has always been that those who come in legally, registering at the port of entry while legally entering the country, should not be detained, in accordance with the link repeatedly provided to you. I'm sure some are detained for some minor reason on occasion, but IAW the link repeatedly provided to you they are only detained for extended periods if they represent a flight or national security risk.

If they are seeking asylum after being caught in the country illegally, they are to be detained for being in the country illegally while their asylum request is processed.

None of this, of course, excuses the several people who died under Obama's watch directly due to the conditions of their detainment, nor the few who have died because they came to our country sick under Trump. Those are horrible things, and people should strongly consider not sending their sick to us to die, nor treating the detainees the way Obama's folks did directly causing their deaths.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I can't help your bad memory. It has always been that those who come in legally, registering at the port of entry while legally entering the country, should not be detained, in accordance with the link repeatedly provided to you. I'm sure some are detained for some minor reason on occasion, but IAW the link repeatedly provided to you they are only detained for extended periods if they represent a flight or national security risk.

If they are seeking asylum after being caught in the country illegally, they are to be detained for being in the country illegally while their asylum request is processed.

None of this, of course, excuses the several people who died under Obama's watch directly due to the conditions of their detainment, nor the few who have died because they came to our country sick under Trump. Those are horrible things, and people should strongly consider not sending their sick to us to die, nor treating the detainees the way Obama's folks did directly causing their deaths.

Why can’t you discuss the pending legislation by the current administration?

Are you a #nevertrumper and believe Obama is still President ?

Can you see into the future to the day Trumps hand in these deaths will be proven?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why can’t you discuss the pending legislation by the current administration?

Are you a #nevertrumper and believe Obama is still President ?

Can you see into the future to the day Trumps hand in these deaths will be proven?
No one is making a serious claim the ones who died recently had anything to do with the conditions, let alone filing a lawsuit with proof like when Obama killed detainees
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why can’t you discuss the pending legislation by the current administration?

Are you a #nevertrumper and believe Obama is still President ?

Can you see into the future to the day Trumps hand in these deaths will be proven?
BTW, it’s not pending legislation
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
No one is making a serious claim the ones who died recently had anything to do with the conditions, let alone filing a lawsuit with proof like when Obama killed detainees

So you think that 8 years is the same as 2 years?

Why don’t we wait until the end of Trumps presidency to determine how badly he has screwed up
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So you think that 8 years is the same as 2 years?

Why don’t we wait until the end of Trumps presidency to determine how badly he has screwed up
I agree we should wait. What we know right now is that Obama's administration is directly responsible for the deaths of many detainees due to the conditions of his detention centers and Trump's administration is not responsible for any. But, as you point out, that may change over the next 5 1/2 years. It's not likely, but possible.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Is it not a proposal of the current administration which will soon be challenged in courts like all the other idiotic overreaches of power?
Trump could issue an EO declaring Tuesday should immediately follow Monday and your folks would decide calendars are dog whistle for racism and fight it in court. The 9th circuit court would concur.

However, a policy return to following the rule of law is not legislation.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Trump could issue an EO declaring Tuesday should immediately follow Monday and your folks would decide calendars are dog whistle for racism and fight it in court. The 9th circuit court would concur.

However, a policy return to following the rule of law is not legislation.

You really are not even worth trying to educate.

So you think Trump should rule by decree with no judicial oversight?

Is the rule of law to indefinitely detainee children in cages without basic hygiene because that is what this administration is constantly advocating
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So you think Trump should rule by decree with no judicial oversight?
No, I am not a believer in "I have a pen and a phone, and if congress doesn't do what I want I'll go around Congress" kind of mindset of a president. That's dictatorial. That's contra-constitutional.

But, Congress has given the president that kind of authority. They write vague laws, saying they want regulators to establish the actual boundaries of laws.

In this instance, Congress has had over 20 years since the so-called Flores settlement to establish new law. The president had been following law when a 15 year old girl was not released to a "third-party adult", an aunt who wanted to take custody of an illegal alien who happened to be a minor. So, the ACLU filed a lawsuit that said, "we don't like Republicans, so we don't think this is good policy." It wasn't policy, it is law. But, by the time the suit made it to court, Clinton was president so "burn 'em all out" Reno took time away killing people she didn't like in TX and ID to agree to let illegal aliens go to about anybody in haste instead of actually following the law. This was intended to be a temporary agreement until new law or regulation was passed.

No one did anything for the rest of Clinton's administration, all of Bush's administration, all of Obama's administration. Now we're in Trump's administration, and he's saying, "well, this is stupid" and trying to go back to following the law.

Furthermore, no president has ever been held to a standard of "judicial oversight" of policies in the way it seems you're saying, or the dumbass article you posted is saying. "Judicial approval" of laws or regulation is not a thing. There's no "judge, you sign here" on laws or regulations. Courts don't "approve" laws or regulations. If challenged by a party with standing, judges are forced to determine an opinion on laws or regulations, or, on the breakers thereof.

Is the rule of law to indefinitely detainee children in cages without basic hygiene because that is what this administration is constantly advocating
Well, now, that's a blatant lie. They want to hold illegal aliens regardless of age in detention centers like every other lawbreaker until adjudication can be done.
 
Top