The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Trump Admin Immigration Policy Thread - DACA, ICE, Kids In Cages, etc
Bogart
Streetwise HerculesRegistered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
Streetwise HerculesRegistered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
Here is the newly reopened immigration policy thread.
This thread is about the immigration policy decisions of the Trump administration. Immigration legislation is on topic as well. Discussion of DACA and ICE are on topic. Court rulings on DACA, Muslim ban, etc are on topic.
What will get this thread locked again are any of the following:
- failure of threadgoers to recognize when they are at an impasse with another poster and should move on to discussing other things
- derailment to topics of Democratic Party strategy/failures (this is not the topic of this thread)
- general inability of threadgoers to participate in a respectful manner
Here is the latest news story:
https://splinternews.com/federal-judge-rules-that-trump-has-to-keep-accepting-ne-1825519769
This thread is about the immigration policy decisions of the Trump administration. Immigration legislation is on topic as well. Discussion of DACA and ICE are on topic. Court rulings on DACA, Muslim ban, etc are on topic.
What will get this thread locked again are any of the following:
- failure of threadgoers to recognize when they are at an impasse with another poster and should move on to discussing other things
- derailment to topics of Democratic Party strategy/failures (this is not the topic of this thread)
- general inability of threadgoers to participate in a respectful manner
Here is the latest news story:
https://splinternews.com/federal-judge-rules-that-trump-has-to-keep-accepting-ne-1825519769
“The Department’s decision to rescind DACA was predicated primarily on its legal judgment that the program was unlawful. That legal judgment was virtually unexplained, however, and so it cannot support the agency’s decision,” Bates wrote in his decision. “And although the government suggests that DACA’s rescission was also predicated on the Department’s assessment of litigation risk, this consideration is insufficiently distinct from the agency’s legal judgment to alter the reviewability analysis.”
Because of this, Bates—who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2001—vacated the decision to end DACA, and ordered that the Department of Homeland Security “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications.”
Bates also granted the federal government a stay of 90 days to give them time to issue another memorandum rescinding DACA, this time with a better explanation of why it ended the program. As the National Immigration Law Center pointed out, this means that US Citizenship and Immigration Services isn’t accepting new applicants yet.
If the government doesn’t give a better explanation of why it ended DACA, however, Bates wrote that he would restore the DACA program in full.
+22
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
This was also in the news this morning. Near 500 parents may have been deported without kids.
NPR : U.S. Refugee Program 'In Danger' Amid Steep Drop In Refugee Arrivals, Advocates Warn
More at the link.
Also, fuck Trump and the Republicans enabling him for doing this shit. These people are refugees, damnit, and on top of that immigrants of all kinds help our economy like crazy.
An asylum-seeker who is also an award-winning journalist gets arrested in a retaliatory move for criticizing ICE and is only released so that ICE doesn't have to shed light on their racist-ass policies.
More details are available in the full article from NPR.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
A detainee diagnosed with Schizophrenia committed suicide after being held in solitary confinement for 21 days, per RAICES of Texas.
A 6-year old girl was sexually abused by a fellow detainee and then forced to sign a form saying it was her responsibility to keep her distance from her abuser, per The Nation.
Hopefully the other "tender age" child also signed a document, so it's all settled.
I know I'm missing the forest for the trees there, as I hope my disgust on the abuse/neglect front goes without saying, but what the fuck is the point of a 6 year old signing a document?
Generally that sort of thing isn't legally enforceable, but since a ton of other laws apparently don't apply to them it could be possible that the laws preventing that don't either.
Right. So what is the point.
There is apparently either:
-A whole policy designed around a paper trail supported by affadavits signed by children.
-No policy, and someone had to call an audible, and thought this policy for adults was functionally applicable.
Like. Am I being unfair to ICE here, because ICE? Do other orgs with oversight of little kids do this? Or is this yet another indication that ICE (and the intersecting HHS department) is systemically fucked up from top to bottom, with breathtaking ineptitude filling in the gaps between the callousness and overt malice.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I like to think the individuals involved are not the best and brightest, if only because the best and brightest would start by saying "put small children in detention facilities? Are you off your meds again?"
So, they're starting from a vague understanding of the law, like the sort you could get in a few days or weeks of training. Then, I'd wager the employees of ICE have a big authoritarian streak. Finally, someone has just enough self awareness to see public opinion turning against them and feels a need for some sort of cover your ass measure. And that's how you end up with six year old signing forms about avoiding their abuser who is presumably in the same holding pen.
I'd say you're being too fair. We all are, as I can't recall a news article about someone being pilloried for this shit.
So as a one time foster parent, there's a lot of documentation that the kids in foster care are supposed to read and sign. Part of that is paper trail and part of that are regulations which need the kids to know and understand what's going on and the signature is one way to try to get that. At least with my experiences when we fostered our later adopted daughter, family judges have a fairly high standard for if kids understand what they sign. While YMMV on that matter, judges don't look too kindly on the foster worker who just gets the signatures and initials for the sake of getting the signatures and initials.
Considering that there seems to be a lot of interaction between these kids in concentration camps who have been stripped from their parents and the local state's foster system, it would not surprise me at all that the ICE contractor called a friend in the foster care worker arena, asked for some advice on what they might do in a hypothetical and completely botched it up. Because that "stay away" contract sounds a lot like what judges enforce on abusers -- that they will stay away from the kid they've been hurting under penalty of being arrested and directly sent to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Think Mary Kay Letourneau.
The point is that it looks and sounds official so some people will shut up as a result of it. Its an attempt to prey on peoples ignorance and fear.
I just don't have words anymore. Only rage.
The confusing part though is why get the kids signature? As an adult you are expected to understand that your signature on a document indicates that you have read, understood, and agree to it's contents. The same standard is obviously not applied to kids. So the sane thing to do is write up a document explaining what was told to the kid and then have the adult who did the explaining to the kid sign it.
Anyone following up on it is not going to rely on the kids signature, they are going to talk to the kid anyway. So it gains you nothing, and makes it seem super sketchy. But just having the case worker/agent sign a document explaining what they told the kid makes perfect sense. Even if in this case it was absurd.
All of america is to blame really, we othered immigrants and immigration for years on both sides and this is what happens.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Obama leashed them a lot more, and was blocked from doing much else. The current decent into...this is entirely on the GOP.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/27/us/propublica-immigration-shelters-abuse-reports/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
The Senator got a question, asking them to support Abolish ICE. Their reply was, after some talk, that they had asked their staffers to look into what would happen next if ICE was abolished Right Now. The staffers came back with a reply...
"Jeff Sessions would control everything (about immigration enforcement). What rules would apply? Whatever Jeff Sessions said."
So... I don't know for sure that that is true. But I think it probably is, my blue-state Senator is unlikely to be bullshitting about that. And I think giving Jeff Sessions complete control over immigration enforcement would introduce a whole new level of shitstorm.
Which makes me think about timing, I guess.
That's...not really true. It depends 100% on how the abolish bill is written, and at the minimum would give him a lot fewer *resources* to work with.
The immigration system is fucked, and abolish ICE isn't going to fix it, but it's a step.
It’s a copout though because nobody is referencing a specific bill. If he really wanted to support the idea he could easily say he supports abolishing ICE and add whatever qualifier he is worried about.
Something like “I also believe ICE should be abolished, but bill X needs a better plan for its dismantling,” or “I also believe ICE should be abolished, but before we can vote on it we need to decide how to replace it with a humane institution least we end up worse off than we are now.”
It drives me insane that people are so simple minded they can’t understand the difference between a slogan and a fully crafted plan.
Let's say the Democrats draft and submit a bill called, for example, ABOLISH ICE. And get all the grassroots wound up behind it, with a big media campaign going. What happens when the Republicans then proceed to draft and submit a bill called 4B0|_|_15H 1CE, that plays at dismantling ICE and but mostly gives Sessions free reign? They can pass their own bill along party lines, excepting the filibuster, and then turn and play the media coverage hard. Meaning the Democrats would be left filibustering the Republican proposal while getting attacked in the media for it, likely from both sides.
Cause the Democrats don't control what gets voted on in the Senate, what the media reports, what the House does, or anything else here. And I think that sort of grassroots energy really doesn't turn on a dime.
I guess the succinct point is this. How could the Republicans abuse a grassroots movement to abolish ICE in service of more racism and child abuse?
I dunno. I think prosecuting ICE, dismantling it, and re-organizing the jobs ICE does is essential at this point. But the lack of legislative power to actually do that may also be relevant here.
He's not being simple-minded, he's just not coming out fully supporting the idea. He's trying to avoid appearing (potentially on camera, at the very least in print or the like) coming full out for the idea.
This is good though. Because doing the above means he feels that he can't say no. He's got to hedge instead of reject. That's the Senator in question telling you indirectly how he feels the wind is blowing on this issue and it's blowing strongly toward "Abolish ICE".
https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2018/07/27/mayor-kenney-announces-philadelphia-will-not-renew-pars-agreement-with-ice/
The data in question was basically allowing ICE to know who, when, and where police had detained or arrested, even if not charged with any crimes, so that they could swoop in and be bastards.
Last year, California passed a law establishing that our state departments aren't to cooperate with federal data requests from ICE and the like. At the time, it was looking like the fed just wanted free reign to crawl through our data looking for minorities to go after.
It was kind of fun getting an email to the effect of "if ICE comes asking for data on individuals, tell them to fuck off."
Would he just have put together a plan for reform and then asked Congress to write up the law? Could he have done anything administratively that the boots on the ground couldn't have just ignored?
Then the guys below him just ignore them anyway. And he might have to pass congressional approval.
The problem the whole time is ICE simply refused to actually respect the chain of command.
If they had waited, who knows if the ACA would have even passed in the first place
The advantage of scattering all of ICE's functionality across other departments is that it would allow leadership overhauls at a much lower level than would be possible if the ICE is kept intact.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net