Moderated Trump announces new concentration camps

Grizzly Adams said:
First of all, they are not concentration camps in the usual use of the word. If they are concentration camps, then every nation on Earth has them - they are called jails and prisons.

Second, detention for pending asylee cases is more than just "not illegal" it is, as I cited, mandated by statute.
Click to expand...
However, even if that is true, recent cases suggest that the conditions under which people are held, especially children separated from their families, are worse than prisons, and that even if the holding is legal, the manner of holding is not only illegal but contrary to previous court judgments. In a case now before the courts in Texas, where children are held in a windowless warehouse, the government is alleging that the requirement of "safe and sanitary" conditions does not require them to provide bedding, soap or tooth paste.

https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-tell-9th-circuit-detained-kids-safe-and-sanitary-without-soap/
 
Meanwhile, obstructing a federal investigation into election tampering is a "process crime."

Anyone hoping for a flash of reason to suddenly take hold (or for Republicans to work with a centrist on this issue), I have bad news for you...
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The allegation related to the simple existence of the detention facilities and was not related to allegations of substandard conditions.
Click to expand...

The facilities referred to are not providing what the law requires them to provide.

You can keep changing some aspect of your objection, it makes no difference. The detention centers, as they currently exist, are illegal.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
This violates the legally mandated process for dealing with asylum applicants. As I said, you can't just stroll up to the port, yell asylum, and then expect to get released and get a hearing date. There is an interview. The whole process takes time.



So no, that is not an alternative.
Click to expand...
The AG has the discretionary power to make such adjustments.

They can detain, yes, but they can also release with a hearing date.
 
Craig4 said:
Nice strawman there. No one has accused the administration of creating death camps.
Click to expand...
But "death camps" are the equivalent of "concentration camps" in the usual use of the word. I've never seen anyone correct the use of "concentration camps" when a mention is made of the Soviets liberating Auschwitz.

Again, if the US is running :concentration camps" then so is every other nation on Earth and the term no longer has any negative meaning.
 
Jesus Christ someone dust off the "technically speaking" award and give it to Grizzly so we can move on.

And no even beyond that your excuse is B.S. "Every country in the world" is not keeping children in cages for months.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The facilities referred to are not providing what the law requires them to provide.

You can keep changing some aspect of your objection, it makes no difference. The detention centers, as they currently exist, are illegal.
Click to expand...
My objection is the same as it has always been. Detention facilities for asylee claimants are not unlawful, and detention of those claimants is not only lawful but mandatory.

Delphic Oracle said:
The AG has the discretionary power to make such adjustments.

They can detain, yes, but they can also release with a hearing date.
Click to expand...
Remember that class you had yesterday on statutory citation? Well the lessons you started to learn (but did not master) continue to apply.

But let me do your work for you. You appear to be confusing the initial determination of whether or not the applicant has a credible fear with the process that follows if it is determined that he does have a credible fear. Detention is mandatory until a determination of credible fear has been made. If there is a credible fear, the applicant can be released pending a decision on his claim. If there is not a credible fear, the applicant shall be removed. The support for this is in 8 USC 1225, like my initial citation.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus Christ someone dust off the "technically speaking" award and give it to Grizzly so we can move on.

And no even beyond that your excuse is B.S. "Every country in the world" is not keeping children in cages for months.
Click to expand...
Fine. Release them into the desert. Not sure how that is better, but you're the boss.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
My objection is the same as it has always been. Detention facilities for asylee claimants are not unlawful, and detention of those claimants is not only lawful but mandatory.


Remember that class you had yesterday on statutory citation? Well the lessons you started to learn (but did not master) continue to apply.

But let me do your work for you. You appear to be confusing the initial determination of whether or not the applicant has a credible fear with the process that follows if it is determined that he does have a credible fear. Detention is mandatory until a determination of credible fear has been made. If there is a credible fear, the applicant can be released pending a decision on his claim. If there is not a credible fear, the applicant shall be removed. The support for this is in 8 USC 1225, like my initial citation.
Click to expand...

Can you please cite specifically where it says they must be detained? Your cites are generic.

It's something like B iv, but it's hard keeping track on the link you sent.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
My objection is the same as it has always been. Detention facilities for asylee claimants are not unlawful, and detention of those claimants is not only lawful but mandatory.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong.





Remember that class you had yesterday on statutory citation? Well the lessons you started to learn (but did not master) continue to apply.
Click to expand...
There was no class, I learned no lesson from you.

The adjustments are in TITLE 8. This was part of the amendments made in 1991 to the 1986 law. Prior to that, Reagan operated such policies by executive order (which Obama was accused of, but nope it's actually the law as it stands).



But let me do your work for you. You appear to be confusing the initial determination of whether or not the applicant has a credible fear with the process that follows if it is determined that he does have a credible fear. Detention is mandatory until a determination of credible fear has been made. If there is a credible fear, the applicant can be released pending a decision on his claim. If there is not a credible fear, the applicant shall be removed. The support for this is in 8 USC 1225, like my initial citation.
Click to expand...
I'm not confusing anything, you're just incapable of admitting you're wrong or engaging in the subject matter without smug insults and bluster.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Fine. Release them into the desert. Not sure how that is better, but you're the boss.
Click to expand...

Or we could treat them with basic levels of human dignity and respect. Crazy concept I know.

Listen, since I can already sense you salivating at the either/or strawman you're gonna use, we're not talking about the immigration/asylum/refugee process being unpleasant or boring or tedious or whatever.

If this was just a case of long wait times, endless boring waiting rooms that smell of stale coffee and impatience, stuffy and half competent bureaucrats wanting every form filled out again and all the other charming attributes that come along with dealing with the US government and anybody of any political stripe was trying to make some sort of huge human rights deal out of that, my eye roll would be so hard you could use it a cheap energy source.

Stuffing kids in cages, have ******* 4 years old defend themselves in court, and having people literally die in custody from lack of basic amenities is none of that. It's inexcusable.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Stuffing kids in cages, have ******* 4 years old defend themselves in court, and having people literally die in custody from lack of basic amenities is none of that. It's inexcusable.
Click to expand...

What? Even if those kids, or perhaps their parents, committed misdemeanors?

Can we throw toddlers into cages if they aren’t white? That’s okay, right?
 
Upchurch said:
What? Even if those kids, or perhaps their parents, committed misdemeanors?

Can we throw toddlers into cages if they aren’t white? That’s okay, right?
Click to expand...

They already do that in Australia, and in Europe, they're content to let the Mediterranean take in all the kids, and their parents. I mean, if you wanted America to be more like the developed world, your wish has been granted.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
But "death camps" are the equivalent of "concentration camps" in the usual use of the word. I've never seen anyone correct the use of "concentration camps" when a mention is made of the Soviets liberating Auschwitz.

Again, if the US is running :concentration camps" then so is every other nation on Earth and the term no longer has any negative meaning.
Click to expand...

Then you're not well educated on the topic. Even the Nazis drew a distinction between the two. You're simply trying to create a false equivalency between the two as a means to avoid facing reality. The stupid bitch in the Whitehouse and his treasonous thugs are running concentration camps. While not death camps (though deaths have occurred to no great concern of those running them) they still are concentration camps.
 
It's only a "Concentration Camp" if it comes from the German providence of Kozentrant. Otherwise it's "Sparkling Detention Center."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom