Moderated Trump announces new concentration camps

[Jungle Jim]

Reading fundamentals. Holdover =! Appointed by Obama.

She might be, but that statement doesn't make you right.

Reading fundamentals indeed. What are you on about? The article states she worked for Eric Holder who was part of the Obama administration.

 

[carlitos]

Reading fundamentals indeed. What are you on about? The article states she worked for Eric Holder who was part of the Obama administration.

Maybe you are a better researcher than I. When exactly was she appointed by Obama, and for what position?

 

[plague311]

Reading fundamentals indeed. What are you on about? The article states she worked for Eric Holder who was part of the Obama administration.

I apologize, let me speak with a bit more clarity. Being a "holdover" from the Obama administration can mean, simply, she was there during the Obama administration. It doesn't mean "she's an Obama lawyer" anymore than her representation of the Trump admin makes her a "Trump lawyer".

She can have worked for Eric Holder, and still not be an "Obama Lawyer". Both of those things can be true at the same time.

It actually appears:

On the one hand, Fabian isn’t a political appointee, so she’s just the messenger here

I guess that would just make her the DoJ's attorney. So now, if we can move on from that sidetrack...

ETA: I also hate to be Captain Obvious here, but you posted a link to a news report that has her defending the Trump Administration. Which means, of course, it makes absolutely no difference if she worked for the Obama administration or not. It's just more whataboutism nonsense. She works for the Trump Administration, she did this while working for the Trump Administration. The original question was for you to show someone that was working for the Obama admin making this argument. Which you absolutely did not, and are for some reason confused. I'm glad I could help.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Reading fundamentals indeed. What are you on about? The article states she worked for Eric Holder who was part of the Obama administration.

I'll rephrase and clarify:

Does there exist any evidence of a lawyer acting on behalf of the Obama administration arguing that soap and toothbrushes are not necessary for a child's hygiene?

 

[Jungle Jim]

I'll rephrase and clarify:

Does there exist any evidence of a lawyer acting on behalf of the Obama administration arguing that soap and toothbrushes are not necessary for a child's hygiene?

I don't know. You asked the question and as it happened I was looking at the article. I thought I was being helpful in providing you with a source that might help with your query. I wasn't trying to make a case for or against.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Maybe you are a better researcher than I. When exactly was she appointed by Obama, and for what position?

I don't know. That information is does not seem readily available. I did find this article from a law firm in 2015 that states she was doing much the same thing as she is now regarding immigrants rights. Here she is mentioned by name: "In other words, if a mother protests or encourages another to protest, DOJ, led by the lawyer-warrior in favor of locking up toddlers and children, Sarah B. Fabian, ICE has a right to punish the mothers’ children with solitary confinement." Full article here:https://amjolaw.com/2015/05/09/depa...can-lock-up-children-in-solitary-confinement/

 

[carlitos]

I don't know. That information is does not seem readily available. I did find this article from a law firm in 2015 that states she was doing much the same thing as she is now regarding immigrants rights. Here she is mentioned by name: "In other words, if a mother protests or encourages another to protest, DOJ, led by the lawyer-warrior in favor of locking up toddlers and children, Sarah B. Fabian, ICE has a right to punish the mothers’ children with solitary confinement." Full article here:https://amjolaw.com/2015/05/09/depa...can-lock-up-children-in-solitary-confinement/

Thank you very much. ICE were definitely not as pure as the driven snow under Mr. Obama's watch.

 

[theprestige]

Seeking asylum within the United States is not a crime. It's a right.

Seeking asylum is a right. Getting asylum isn't.

Detaining asylum-seekers pending review of their petition for asylum is a reasonable policy. Improving the conditions in detention is a goal we should pursue. But there are limits to capacity. As those limits are reached, conditions must worsen. This can be mitigated by spending more money on detention, but at a certain point it starts to get silly. You're spending huge amounts of taxpayer money not on infrastructure, not on healthcare, not on jobs or diplomacy or anything else your citizens are supposedly paying for.

You're spending that money on hundreds of thousands of uninvited guests. Which is to say, you're spending it on national security. This is a legitimate expense. The question is whether it continues to be the best way to get more security. At some point, you might get better results by deterring or turning away most of the people who show up at the border. This would also greatly improve conditions for those who remained in detention. It would also get them out of detention sooner.

There's also another problem. The general international consensus seems to be that petitions for asylum are only legitimate until the petitioner first enters a country that offers them asylum. Refugees entering Mexico and being offered asylum there have effectively zero claim on US hospitality, and shouldn't even get as far as the detention centers. This would also have a salutary effect on the conditions for those who are still being detained.

A better president than Donald Trump might be able to cut these gordian knots without causing more problems than he solved. But I think the country - and the refugees - can make it through another six years of the current situation, if it comes to that.

 

[theprestige]

But he's still threatening to, in good ol' fascist tradition:
Trump says he will put deportation efforts on hold temporarily

Think he'll even put them on trains to the border?

I was going to tell you that your cite is behind a paywall, and ask if you could find some other source for your claim. But then I noticed that your claim is essentially Trump=Hitler, so whatevs. I'll find other people to debate this with.

 

[plague311]

Seeking asylum is a right. Getting asylum isn't.

Yeah, that's what he said.

*snipped terrible attempts at trying to rationalize treating people like **** because that's like..totally not our job...and like, it's tough to not be pricks...and like, seriously we like...totally shouldn't have to and stuff.

 

[theprestige]

I did no such thing.

My point is Trump being some "special kind of evil" is not a prerequisite to complain about something he's doing.

This whole "You didn't complain about X before, therefore you can't complain about it ever!" is what people are having the issue with.

And that is a whole separate thing from the discussion as to how comparable Trump is from other administrations/countries.

Even if Barack Hussein Evil Librul Obama the Secret Kenyan Muslim Sleeper Agent had woke up every morning and beat a refugee child to death with a stack of Bibles wrapped in a burning American flag on the steps of the White House every single day of his Presidency it would not completely remove my ability to criticize Trump right now at this moment, in this discussion.

"bUr uR bEIng a hYPOcriTE!" is not the ultimate, you win every argument know and forever card you're playing it as.

I'm not sacrificing "good" at the alter of "But the other side got to get away with it!"

Fair enough. Tell me more about the improvements you think Trump or his successor should make to our border enforcement strategy.

 

[theprestige]

Let's try something different.

The Trump administration has a practice of housing undocumented children in filthy, inhumane conditions (either through malice or negligence). This is bad, and the practice should change.

Agree or disagree?

Complex question. Disagree.

Stipulating the assumed facts. Agree.

 

[theprestige]

But remember conservative reasoning 101. When it is a republican president violating US law it doesn't matter if it is asylum law or ordering torture, when a republican president does it, its legal.

What's your solution, ponderingturtle?

 

[Craig4]

"Liberals always lie".

And they also always project their lying onto others (characteristic of most liars).

Where was Trump's father born?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Seeking asylum is a right. Getting asylum isn't.

Uhh... thanks? I know that. Remember, I'm responding to Cain's statement: "You break the law like the illegals are doing and you get put in a detention area."

He's the one who's operating from a severe misunderstanding.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Thank you very much. ICE were definitely not as pure as the driven snow under Mr. Obama's watch.

What relevance does that have in regards to the practice of operating concentration camps?

 

[carlitos]

What relevance does that have in regards to the practice of operating concentration camps?

The same ICE lawyer that argued for putting kids in solitary confinement in 2015 under Obama is today questioning whether toothbrushes and soap and warm sleep are basic needs for children under Trump. Seems relevant to me.

 

[Upchurch]

I was going to tell you that your cite is behind a paywall, and ask if you could find some other source for your claim. But then I noticed that your claim is essentially Trump=Hitler, so whatevs. I'll find other people to debate this with.

Those who forget history...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I'm trying to find a way within the MA to honestly relay my opinion of a person for whom when they are informed children are being kept in cages their response is "Yeah but only for up to three weeks."

I will continue to do so.

Make sure you've got that rope tied tight and secured to something sturdy. You're pretty much leaning out over the edge of Rule 0.

Don't play dumb.

That's not an answer.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I'd like to see your evidence that the majority or even a reasonable bulk of the populations of these concentration camps who were seeking asylum, crossed at a place other than a port of entry. Because it was certainly my impression otherwise; that the vast overwhelming majority of these asylum claimants crossed at ports of entry and surrendered immediately to the Border Patrol, considering that was the whole point of their journey.

Are you ******* serious? I thank you, sir, for displaying your earth-shattering ignorance of how the border works and what is going on there so I can give any opinion you present the regard it truly deserves.

Why would they make entry at a port, then wander off into the desert to find a Border Patrol agent so they can claim asylum instead of claiming it at the port of entry to a CBP officer? Do you think all brown people are this stupid? Further, the vast majority of them can't even make entry because they don't have visas or even passports. They would HAVE to claim asylum AT THE PORT because they'll get refused for not having the proper entry documents.

I will attempt to relieve you of the burden of ignorance. Here is but a single example. All you have to do is Google it. But you have to read carefully. Most outlets won't tell you they've crossed illegally. That doesn't fit the narrative. Know that if a group is apprehended by Border Patrol, they crossed illegally. This is a fact. If you are allowed in at a port, there's no apprehension to be made by BP because you are here lawfully.

https://www.businessinsider.com/border-patrol-video-largest-group-migrants-crossing-border-2019-5