• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Immigration & Trumps Wall

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
DACA bill splits GOP lawmakers
RT America



Published on Jun 7, 2018
House republicans have not reached a deal on how to proceed on immigration legislation. Moderate and conservative GOP lawmakers are divided on how to treat young immigrants who came to the US as children. For more on this, Georgia state representative Erica Thomas and conservative commentator DeAnna Lorraine joins RT America’s Manila Chan.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Likes
2,899
Not sure how comparing slavdery makes much of a case for you since it has been outlawed for 150 years. Any other irrelevant comparisons to the criminal invasion and squatting? btw I'm still waiting for you to end your hypocracy by allowing illegal squatters to squat on your property given that you think we all should allow squatters on our joint property...you first el hypocrito.
As I have already explained, goldie...

I don't believe you should let anyone squat on your private property, neither immigrant nor native born. However, so long as they do not actually squat on anybody's private property (which immigrants generally don't), individuals have a legitimate, natural and unalienable right to freedom of movement, free association, trade and work.

You like to pretend that an immigrant finding a place to live, paying rent and getting a job equals some kind of Viking invasion. But just pretending don't make it so.

On the other hand, I reject your fantasy of "joint ownership" of land no one has ever worked, inhabited or acquired through peaceful, legitimate means. I side with John Locke on this. Work and inhabitation are the only sources of legitimate private property rights over land. Someone's ability to commit greater violence than others up to a certain distance does not entitle them to all the land in between.
 
Last edited:

mtnman

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,004
Likes
6,687
Location
East Tennessee

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Likes
2,899
"constitutional rights" are for US citizens only. We need more profiling to find illegals.
All men having been endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Just which rights do you believe US citizens are entitled to that other men, as individuals, are not?

What happens when and if the Constitution ceases to be enforced? Do you lose all your rights?

Do you really believe laws and force are in fact the source of any legitimate rights?
 

mtnman

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,004
Likes
6,687
Location
East Tennessee
All men having been endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Just which rights do you believe US citizens are entitled to that other men, as individuals, are not?

What happens when and if the Constitution ceases to be enforced? Do you lose all your rights?

Do you really believe laws and force are in fact the source of any legitimate rights?
When that was written the founding fathers were addressing the men that lived here in the US. Also at that time blacks and natives were not considered men nor were women. The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,608
Likes
3,599
I hear you. I respect that.
I'm graying as well, you know. We've been posting here for a good number of years now.
One of the most valuable lessons I've learned is that, at most, there is only one thing I can control or change in the whole world, and that is myself. And truly controlling oneself is no easy task, either.
Still, I enjoy the exchange of ideas and respectful debate, particularly with gentlemen such as yourself. All the best as always, mtnmn.
Im greying too, gentlemen....
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Honduran father, 39, kills himself in his cell while awaiting deportation after he entered the US illegally and was separated from his wife and child at the border

  • Marco Antonio Muñoz, 39, was found dead on the floor of his Star County, Texas, jail cell on May 13
  • He was discovered lying in a small pool of his own blood with an article of clothing tied around his neck
  • Texas authorities believe that Muñoz suffered a breakdown when he was separated from his family after entering the US illegally through the Rio Grande
  • The incident occurred shortly after the Trump administration instituted a 'zero tolerance' policy on illegal immigration
  • So far, the 'zero tolerance' policy, which prosecutes unlawful entry into the US, has separated more than 1,800 families
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5825455/Honduran-father-39-kills-custody.html
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Likes
2,899
When that was written the founding fathers were addressing the men that lived here in the US. Also at that time blacks and natives were not considered men nor were women. The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them.
Exactly. The Constitution does not create or grant rights, it protects them. Rights are natural and unalienable to all individuals, as expressed by the DOI. That the Constitution failed to expressly recognize that women, natives and others are included in "all men" might be a function of the times rather than a consequence of the founders' ideals.
 

mtnman

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,004
Likes
6,687
Location
East Tennessee
Exactly. The Constitution does not create or grant rights, it protects them. Rights are natural and unalienable to all individuals, as expressed by the DOI. That the Constitution failed to expressly recognize that women, natives and others are included in "all men" might be a function of the times rather than a consequence of the founders' ideals.
And in order to exercise those rights inside the boundaries of the United States you must be a citizen.
 

hammerhead

Morphing
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
5,496
Likes
5,923
Location
On a speck of dust
Honduran father, 39, kills himself in his cell while awaiting deportation after he entered the US illegally and was separated from his wife and child at the border

  • Marco Antonio Muñoz, 39, was found dead on the floor of his Star County, Texas, jail cell on May 13
  • He was discovered lying in a small pool of his own blood with an article of clothing tied around his neck
  • Texas authorities believe that Muñoz suffered a breakdown when he was separated from his family after entering the US illegally through the Rio Grande
  • The incident occurred shortly after the Trump administration instituted a 'zero tolerance' policy on illegal immigration
  • So far, the 'zero tolerance' policy, which prosecutes unlawful entry into the US, has separated more than 1,800 families
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5825455/Honduran-father-39-kills-custody.html
Suicide you say?
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Judge Stops Deportation of a New York Pizza Delivery Man

New York Times
By LIZ ROBBINS
10 hrs ago

A federal judge in Manhattan on Saturday temporarily halted the deportation of a New York pizza delivery man at least until a court hearing on July 20.

The judge, Alison J. Nathan, of Federal District Court in New York, ruled for the plaintiff, Pablo Villavicencio Calderon, after his lawyers filed an emergency petition earlier in the day. In her order, the judge said federal officials must file court documents before the hearing to explain why a temporary preliminary injunction should not be issued in favor of Mr. Villavicencio, who is still being detained.

Judge Nathan was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2011. From 2009 to 2010, she served as special assistant to Mr. Obama and was an associate White House counsel.

Mr. Villavicencio, 35, was delivering from a pizza restaurant in Queens to an Army base in Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, on June 1 when he was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents by a military police officer. A background check revealed that Mr. Villavicencio, a native of Ecuador, had an open order of removal since 2010. He was immediately taken to the Hudson County Correctional Facility in Kearny, N.J.

A spokeswoman for the immigration agency did not immediately reply to an email or phone message seeking comment.

In a federal lawsuit, Mr. Villavicencio’s lawyers claimed that he was a victim of racial profiling at the Army base and that the detention violated his constitutional rights. Mr. Villavicencio was in the process of applying to become a legal permanent resident, the suit said, and he has not been able to present evidence in his pending application.

On Friday, his lawyers from the Legal Aid Society of New York filed a petition with the New York field office of ICE, as the immigration agency is known, to have him released on humanitarian reasons. His wife is an American citizen, as are his two daughters, and they argued that since he was a primary provider for the family, he needed to be home. His youngest daughter, 2, has a congenital heart defect, according to the lawsuit.

But as a judgment was pending on Friday night, the situation got more urgent for his lawyers. They learned that the commissary account for Mr. Villavicencio was suddenly cleared, which is usually a precursor to immediate deportation.

“The focus was to stop him from getting removed this weekend,” Gregory P. Copeland, supervising attorney for the immigration unit of the Legal Aid Society, said. “He’s not getting removed, that’s the goal.”

The next step, Mr. Copeland said, is to get him out of detention.

This type of 11th-hour appeal to stop deportation or detention is not uncommon in immigration cases. Notably, in January, lawyers filed a petition in the Southern District to halt the deportation of the immigrant activist Ravi Ragbir. Mr. Ragbir had been detained at an ICE check-in, after fighting his deportation order for multiple years. He was sent to Miami to be deported to Trinidad and Tobago. Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled in an impassioned decision that he should have been entitled to “the freedom to say goodbye.” Mr. Ragbir’s case is still pending.

Unlike Mr. Ragbir, who had been convicted of wire fraud in 2000, however, Mr. Villavicencio has no criminal record. A native of Ecuador, Mr. Villavicencio entered the country illegally in 2008. He was granted voluntary departure in 2010, but when he did not depart, he was labeled a fugitive by ICE.

But the swiftness of the immigration agency’s action was deeply unsettling for his wife, Sandra Chica, and their children and outraged Democratic lawmakers and officials. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York included a letter in the lawsuit supporting Mr. Villavicencio, as did Representatives Hakeem Jeffries, Kathleen Rice and Nydia M. Velázquez.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo sent a letter to the New York field director of ICE, Thomas R. Decker, in which he questioned the government’s rush to deport Mr. Villavicencio.

Mr. Cuomo said it seemed that the detention was part of a pattern targeting New York residents, presumably because of the state’s limited cooperation with immigration officials.

Matt Stevens contributed reporting.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...york-pizza-delivery-man/ar-AAyqZwk?ocid=ientp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
‘Back to the Dark Ages’: Sessions’s asylum ruling reverses decades of women’s rights progress, critics say

Washington Post
Samantha Schmidt
3 hrs ago

Aminta Cifuentes suffered weekly beatings at the hands of her husband. He broke her nose, burned her with paint thinner and raped her.

She called the police in her native Guatemala several times but was told they could not interfere in a domestic matter, according to a court ruling. When Cifuentes’s husband hit her in the head, leaving her bloody, police came to the home but refused to arrest him. He threatened to kill her if she called authorities again.

So in 2005, Cifuentes fled to the United States. “If I had stayed there, he would have killed me,” she told the Arizona Republic.

And after nearly a decade of waiting on an appeal, Cifuentes was granted asylum. The 2014 landmark decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals set the precedent that women fleeing domestic violence were eligible to apply for asylum. It established clarity in a long-running debate over whether asylum can be granted on the basis of violence perpetrated in the “private” sphere, according to Karen Musalo, director for the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.

But on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned the precedent set in Cifuentes’s case, deciding that victims of domestic abuse and gang violence generally will not qualify for asylum under federal law. (Unlike the federal courts established under Article III of the Constitution, the immigration court system is part of the Justice Department.)

For critics, including former immigration judges, the unilateral decision undoes decades of carefully deliberated legal progress. For gender studies experts, such as Musalo, the move “basically throws us back to the Dark Ages, when we didn’t recognize that women’s rights were human rights.”

“If we say in the year 2018 that a woman has been beaten almost to death in a country that accepts that as almost the norm, and that we as a civilized society can deny her protection and send her to her death?” Musalo said. “I don’t see this as just an immigration issue … I see this as a women’s rights issue.”

Sessions’s decision reversed a 2016 ruling by the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals, the body responsible for interpreting U.S. asylum law, granting asylum to a Salvadoran woman who said she was abused by her husband. Musalo is co-counsel in the case.

Sessions’s reasoning hinged on the argument that domestic violence victims generally are not persecuted as members of a “particular social group,” according to his ruling. Under federal law, asylum applicants must show that either “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion … was or will be at least one central reason” for their persecution.

In the precedent-setting Cifuentes case, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an applicant can qualify for asylum as a member of a particular social group of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” To support its ruling, the board noted that Guatemala has a culture of “machismo and family violence.” Spousal rape is common and local police often fail to enforce domestic violence laws.

Sessions rejected that reasoning. “When private actors inflict violence based on a personal relationship with a victim,” Sessions wrote, “then the victim’s membership in a larger group may well not be ‘one central reason’ for the abuse.”

“The prototypical refugee flees her home country because the government has persecuted her,” Sessions wrote. “An alien may suffer threats and violence in a foreign country for any number of reasons relating to her social, economic, family, or other personal circumstances. Yet the asylum statute does not provide redress for all misfortune.”

As Kara Lynum, an immigration lawyer in Minnesota, tweeted, “Sessions thinks these women aren’t eligible for asylum because their husbands are only violent to them — not all women.”

A group of 15 retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals wrote a letter in response to Sessions’s decision, calling it an “affront to the rule of law.”

The Cifuentes case, they wrote, “was the culmination of a 15 year process” through the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals. The issue was certified by three attorneys general, one Democrat and two Republican. The private bar and law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, agreed with the final determination, the former judges wrote. The decision was also supported by asylum protections under international refugee treaties, they said.

“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote.

Courts and attorneys general have debated the definition of a “particular social group” since the mid-1990s, according to Musalo.

“It took the refugee area a while to catch up with the human rights area of law,” Musalo said.

A series of cases led up to the Cifuentes decision. In 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals established that women fleeing gender-based persecution could be eligible for asylum in the United States. The case, known as Matter of Kasinga, centered on a teenager who fled her home in Togo to escape female genital cutting and a forced polygamous marriage. Musalo was lead attorney in the case, which held that fear of female genital cutting could be used as a basis for asylum.

“Fundamentally the principle was the same,” as the one at stake in Sessions’s ruling, Musalo said. Female genital cutting, like domestic violence in the broader sense, generally takes place in the “private” sphere, inflicted behind closed doors by relatives of victims.

Musalo also represented Rody Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who fled extreme domestic abuse and, in 2009, won an important asylum case after a 14-year legal fight. Her victory broke ground for other women seeking asylum on the basis of domestic violence.

Then, after years of incremental decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals published its first precedent-setting opinion in the 2014 Cifuentes case, known as Matter of A-R-C-G.

“I actually thought that finally we had made some progress,” Musalo said. Although the impact wasn’t quite as pronounced as many experts had hoped, it was a step for women fleeing gender-based violence in Latin America and other parts of the world.

Now, Musalo says, Sessions is trying to undo all that and is doing so at a particularly monumental time for gender equality in the United States and worldwide.

“We’ve gone too far in society with the MeToo movement and all of the other advances in women’s rights to accept this principle,” Musalo said.

“It shows that there are these deeply entrenched attitudes toward gender and gender equality,” she added. “There are always those forces that are sort of the dying gasp of wanting to hold on to the way things were.”

Sessions assigned the 2016 case to himself under his power as attorney general and said the move will help reduce the growing backlog of 700,000 court cases.

He concluded his ruling by saying he does not intend to “minimize the vile abuse” that the Salvadoran woman suffered or the “harrowing experiences of many other victims of domestic violence around the world.” But the “asylum statute is not a general hardship statute,” Sessions wrote.

Relatively few refugees are granted asylum annually. In 2016, for example, nearly 62 percent of applicants were denied asylum, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, wrote on his blog that Sessions sought to encourage immigration judges to “just find a way to say no as quickly as possible.” (Schmidt authored the decision in the Kasinga case extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation.)

Sessions’s ruling is “likely to speed up the ‘deportation railway,’ ” Schmidt wrote. But it will also encourage immigration judges to “cut corners, and avoid having to analyze the entire case,” he argued.

“Sessions is likely to end up with sloppy work and lots of Circuit Court remands for ‘do overs,’ ” Schmidt wrote. “At a minimum, that’s going to add to the already out of control Immigration Court backlog.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘b...ts-progress-critics-say/ar-AAyx6GT?ocid=ientp
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,215
Likes
837
As I have already explained, goldie...

I don't believe you should let anyone squat on your private property, neither immigrant nor native born. However, so long as they do not actually squat on anybody's private property (which immigrants generally don't), individuals have a legitimate, natural and unalienable right to freedom of movement, free association, trade and work.
Again, (since this is so hard for you to comprehend), any land owned by "the public" is owned by a conglomeration of the private US citizens. That doesn't translate to everyone in the world. The United States is a distinct entity separate from the rest of the world's peoples. Private property rights apply at all levels: individual, joint, community, business, and government. Private property is one of the foundations of freedom and liberty. Without private property rights for the aggregate of US citizens being secure, there can be no private property secured for any other level.

As I have already explained, goldie...
On the other hand, I reject your fantasy of "joint ownership" of land no one has ever worked, inhabited or acquired through peaceful, legitimate means. I side with John Locke on this. Work and inhabitation are the only sources of legitimate private property rights over land. Someone's ability to commit greater violence than others up to a certain distance does not entitle them to all the land in between.
Yeah actually it does. There are only two ways people in history have acquired land: buy it or fight for it. We fought for some and bought some (Louisiana Purchase). If you really believe that the US has no right to any of its land, then please leave the country and give your private property to whomever you feel it really belongs to. Of course as a typical idiot savant you don't really believe what you spout and will say one thing and act oppositely to that.

Also with that stupid Locke argument, if I squatted on "your" land and started a garden then I now own your land. Surely even you're not that dumb to believe what you're spouting.

As I have already explained, goldie...
You like to pretend that an immigrant finding a place to live, paying rent and getting a job equals some kind of Viking invasion. But just pretending don't make it so.
Actually that's a fairly good example. Just like introducing fake currency into the system dilutes everyone who has the real currency's buying power, so does introducing illegals and giving them rights and benefits and handouts, into a system for only legitimate citizens.

All men having been endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Just which rights do you believe US citizens are entitled to that other men, as individuals, are not?

What happens when and if the Constitution ceases to be enforced? Do you lose all your rights?

Do you really believe laws and force are in fact the source of any legitimate rights?
Wow so many ignorant people fail to understand what a legal contract is. The Constitution is one and it only applies to the parties therein. It isn't a worldwide document for all men, it is a document between the representatives of the citizens of the United States and its citizens (and their progeny). It has nothing to do with Guatemalans or Mexicans. Sorry you need to take a basic class on law or contracts. People like you probably believe that if John Smith had a contract with John Doe that you have the right to impose yourself into John Doe's contract and demand John Smith fulfill his obligations to John Doe to you instead.

Unlike Mr. Ragbir, who had been convicted of wire fraud in 2000, however, Mr. Villavicencio has no criminal record. A native of Ecuador, Mr. Villavicencio entered the country illegally in 2008. He was granted voluntary departure in 2010, but when he did not depart, he was labeled a fugitive by ICE.
The article is self-contradicting. No criminal record yet is admittedly "Mr. Villavicencio entered the country illegally in 2008. He was granted voluntary departure in 2010, but when he did not depart, he was labeled a fugitive by ICE". By definition he is a criminal. Also he has no Constitutional rights since he isn't a citizen (he was complaining about racial profiling).
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Likes
2,899
Again, (since this is so hard for you to comprehend), any land owned by "the public" is owned by a conglomeration of the private US citizens. That doesn't translate to everyone in the world. The United States is a distinct entity separate from the rest of the world's peoples. Private property rights apply at all levels: individual, joint, community, business, and government. Private property is one of the foundations of freedom and liberty. Without private property rights for the aggregate of US citizens being secure, there can be no private property secured for any other level.
Private property rights are indeed one of the foundations of liberty. However, public ownership and State property are not examples of private property rights.


Yeah actually it does.
No, actually, it doesn't.
The use of force does not create or produce any legitimate rights.
If it did, anything anyone could achieve by using violence would be "right".

There are only two ways people in history have acquired land: buy it or fight for it.
Wrong.
Many people "in history" have settled peacefully, worked and inhabited previously unoccupied land.

We fought for some and bought some (Louisiana Purchase). If you really believe that the US has no right to any of its land, then please leave the country and give your private property to whomever you feel it really belongs to. Of course as a typical idiot savant you don't really believe what you spout and will say one thing and act oppositely to that.
Did you fight for some of the land, or are you just tagging yourself into a collective and taking credit for other people's actions?
Also, you insist on misrepreseinting what I said instead of dealing with it. I did not say individuals have no right to private property and should "give it away".

Grow up, goldie.

Also with that stupid Locke argument, if I squatted on "your" land and started a garden then I now own your land. Surely even you're not that dumb to believe what you're spouting.
You are trying really hard not to comprehend a very clear and logical concept. Niether Locke nor I propose people should be free to invade other people's private property. His point, which I support, is that violence doesn't create property rights. Work and inhabitation do. Got it?


Actually that's a fairly good example. Just like introducing fake currency into the system dilutes everyone who has the real currency's buying power, so does introducing illegals and giving them rights and benefits and handouts, into a system for only legitimate citizens.
Yeah, except people are not currency, their work is not fake and workers don't own jobs. So, just like it, except completely different.


Wow so many ignorant people fail to understand what a legal contract is. The Constitution is one and it only applies to the parties therein. It isn't a worldwide document for all men, it is a document between the representatives of the citizens of the United States and its citizens (and their progeny). It has nothing to do with Guatemalans or Mexicans. Sorry you need to take a basic class on law or contracts. People like you probably believe that if John Smith had a contract with John Doe that you have the right to impose yourself into John Doe's contract and demand John Smith fulfill his obligations to John Doe to you instead.
Wow, so little actual understanding of contract law and rights. You can't have a contract if you can't define the parties to the contract. You can't make anyone a party to a contract without their express knowledge and consent. You can't include people in a contract as a mere result of being born somewhere. You can't enforce terms to which parties have not agreed. I could go on, but I doubt it would actually do you any good. You're too scared of losing your perceived privileges to actually understand why freedom is better than hay and a stable.

Chew on this, goldie: Individual rights do not come from Constitutions, they are not limited by borders and they cannot be legislated or voted away.
 
Last edited:

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,215
Likes
837
Private property rights are indeed one of the foundations of liberty. However, public ownership and State property are not examples of private property rights.




No, actually, it doesn't.
The use of force does not create or produce any legitimate rights.
If it did, anything anyone could achieve by using violence would be "right".



Wrong.
Many people "in history" have settled peacefully, worked and inhabited previously unoccupied land.



Did you fight for some of the land, or are you just tagging yourself into a collective and taking credit for other people's actions?
Also, you insist on misrepreseinting what I said instead of dealing with it. I did not say individuals have no right to private property and should "give it away".

Grow up, goldie.


You are trying really hard not to comprehend a very clear and logical concept. Niether Locke nor I propose people should be free to invade other people's private property. His point, which I support, is that violence doesn't create property rights. Work and inhabitation do. Got it?




Yeah, except people are not currency, their work is not fake and workers don't own jobs. So, just like it, except completely different.




Wow, so little actual understanding of contract law and rights. You can't have a contract if you can't define the parties to the contract. You can't make anyone a party to a contract without their express knowledge and consent. You can't include people in a contract as a mere result of being born somewhere. You can't enforce terms to which parties have not agreed. I could go on, but I doubt it would actually do you any good. You're too scared of losing your perceived privileges to actually understand why freedom is better than hay and a stable.

Chew on this, goldie: Individual rights do not come from Constitutions, they are not limited by borders and they cannot be legislated or voted away.
I must say you are one of the most ignorant people I've seen on these forums. There are other dillusional people that are just living in fantasy world but in just one area (such as our bitcoin bagholder friends Joking and Solarion). You however are just way off base in la la land on basically every principle imaginable. You talk a good talk but it is obvious to those that are educated that your ideas are self-refuting and illogical. For instance to say that private property should be protected but that communal property or joint property should not is ignorant and self-refuting. How can you have protection over a single person's property and then say that that person's ownership stake is not protected if it is owned by more than one person. Quite asinine to even propose that.

Again, the Constitution is a contract. The 2 parties of the contract are the representatives of the US citizens and the US citizens and their progeny. It does not involve Mexicans or Guatemalans or "refugees". If those that live here decide to legally welcome an immigrant through a process we have established then that person would then be added to the contract, just like a pair of US citizens giving birth to a baby citizen add that baby citizen to the contract. This is not disputed by anyone with half a brain.

Pretty much all land was inhabited by someone else at least in the last 2000 years. So I stand by my correct statement that land can be acquired through war or money. The US is a mixture of both. Land cannot be acquired by squatting on land, or your other dumb idea of squatting and working on a piece of land makes it yours. If that were the case, I'll come visit your property and squat and plant a garden....at which point you will expose your hypocracy by trying to kick me off that land.

I am a US citizen. My forebearers came here legally. I have some that date back to colonial times and the Mayflower and others that legally immigrated through Ellis Island. When or if someone dates to the colonial times is irrelevant though because as I said, anyone that comes here legally under the process established by the legal citizens can be grafted in to the rights and priviliges of the Constitution and our laws. Nice try trying to push your dumb side idea that if one doesn't date back to the founding fathers then he is "taking credit for other people's actions". Let me let you in on a secret since you're too dumb to have thought of this: Our Founding Fathers fought for their progeny to be free, not just for themselves. They wanted this country to remain a Christian Constitutional Republic to be passed down from generation to generation. Unfortunately socialists and idiots such as yourself are doing everything they can to undermine that and due to stupidity and ignorant ideas such as yours, are being quite successful.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
House Republicans to vote on TWO competing DACA bills next week, after GOP moderates fall two votes short of being able to force their own immigration bill to the floor

  • Speaker Paul Ryan announced Tuesday that the votes would occur next week
  • One vote will be on a conservative immigration measure
  • Another is on a compromise still being negotiated
  • A group of moderates using a rare discharge petition fell short, coming within two votes of being able to force their own DACA bill to the floor
  • The push for legislation began after President Trump announced he was removing DACA protections
  • Negotiated bill could provide a pathway to citizenship plus $25 billion for Trump's border wall
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5836503/GOP-seeks-immigration-accord-pressure-moderates.html
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Likes
2,899
.... For instance to say that private property should be protected but that communal property or joint property should not is ignorant and self-refuting. How can you have protection over a single person's property and then say that that person's ownership stake is not protected if it is owned by more than one person. Quite asinine to even propose that.
It would be, except that's now what I proposed. That's just the strawman you erect and then pretend to attack, while steering clear of what I actually said. Intellectual cowardice much, goldie?

Again, the Constitution is a contract. The 2 parties of the contract are the representatives of the US citizens and the US citizens and their progeny.
Let me ask you this: Can I sign a contract that binds my progeny to its terms forever? Can you?

It does not involve Mexicans or Guatemalans or "refugees". If those that live here decide to legally welcome an immigrant through a process we have established then that person would then be added to the contract, just like a pair of US citizens giving birth to a baby citizen add that baby citizen to the contract. This is not disputed by anyone with half a brain.
You just don't get it. My point is not whether the US Constitution includes immigrants or not. Although the DOI clearly states that "all men" are endowed with unalienable rights, my point here is that individuals have individual rights whether you or anyone else recognize it or not, and whether the US Constitution or any other laws recognize it or not.

Pretty much all land was inhabited by someone else at least in the last 2000 years. So I stand by my correct statement that land can be acquired through war or money. The US is a mixture of both. Land cannot be acquired by squatting on land, or your other dumb idea of squatting and working on a piece of land makes it yours. If that were the case, I'll come visit your property and squat and plant a garden....at which point you will expose your hypocracy by trying to kick me off that land.
Again, you're too intentionally obtuse to comprehend that which you refuse to comprehend, so you erect another strawman you can fight without suffering so many scratches. If you want to refute my position, have the courage to state it, rather than try to change it to what you'd like it to be.


I am a US citizen. My forebearers came here legally. I have some that date back to colonial times and the Mayflower and others that legally immigrated through Ellis Island. When or if someone dates to the colonial times is irrelevant though because as I said, anyone that comes here legally under the process established by the legal citizens can be grafted in to the rights and priviliges of the Constitution and our laws. Nice try trying to push your dumb side idea that if one doesn't date back to the founding fathers then he is "taking credit for other people's actions".
Come on, admit it. You fought no one for the land. You were just taking credit for othe men's actions.

Let me let you in on a secret since you're too dumb to have thought of this: Our Founding Fathers fought for their progeny to be free, not just for themselves. They wanted this country to remain a Christian Constitutional Republic to be passed down from generation to generation. Unfortunately socialists and idiots such as yourself are doing everything they can to undermine that and due to stupidity and ignorant ideas such as yours, are being quite successful.
That's all your opinion. Thanks for sharing it and all, but you're not stating any facts.
In my opinion, the Founding Fathers fought for individual freedom and limited government, which you ignorantly undermine by demanding your perceived privileges be protected. You want your hay and your stable and you think if anyone else is allowed their own hay, your ration may be at risk. It's that simple.
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,215
Likes
837
It would be, except that's now what I proposed. That's just the strawman you erect and then pretend to attack, while steering clear of what I actually said. Intellectual cowardice much, goldie?



Let me ask you this: Can I sign a contract that binds my progeny to its terms forever? Can you?
No you've been crying that illegal squatters should have the right to squat on my communal land as long as it isn't singularly owned. Not only inconsistent but you don't have the right to decide what others should and should not allow on their communal land. If I need to I can cite about 10 intance where you've been pounding the table on that very point. Funny how you dumm socialists always seem to like to twist the truth and/or redefine terms once your argument gets slammed.

Yes. Again, you're free to leave anytime thereby breaking free form that constitution which you hate so much...don't let the wall hit you on the rear as you leave. Further we have something known as consent of the governed here. Since you obviously not only never took a class or bothered to learn about contract law, I'm definitely not surprised to learn you aren't familiar with basic government concepts in our nation either.

You just don't get it. My point is not whether the US Constitution includes immigrants or not. Although the DOI clearly states that "all men" are endowed with unalienable rights, my point here is that individuals have individual rights whether you or anyone else recognize it or not, and whether the US Constitution or any other laws recognize it or not.
Again, "all men" is a term used within a specific conctact between two specific parties: the US citizens and the US representatives. It isn't a contract for all men dummy, it is a two party contract which has language that applies to both parties. You and your socialist buddy can sign your own two party contract saying "all muslims must be killed", that doesn't make it binding on everyone in the world to kill all muslims (because libertum signed a contract so we must kill muslims in the middle east), just you and the other party that signed it would be bound to it. Why is this so hard for your peabrain to understand?

Further since like most socialists you're probably an atheist, you don't believe in a Creator endowing inalienable rights so the point is moot for you.

Come on, admit it. You fought no one for the land. You were just taking credit for othe men's actions..
Again, if my forebearers fought for freedom, it was not just for themselves but for their progeny. Read their own writings which say exactly that. Of course you probably have spent a total of 0 minutes actually reading any founding documents or writings, which is painfully obvious based on your uneducated ramblings and arguments. Just like if your parent left you an inheritance, my founding fathers left me the inheritance of this Christian republic (what's left of it at this point at least).

In my opinion, the Founding Fathers fought for individual freedom and limited government, which you ignorantly undermine by demanding your perceived privileges be protected. You want your hay and your stable and you think if anyone else is allowed their own hay, your ration may be at risk. It's that simple.
Sorry no one cares about your opinion. Let's stick to the facts. Things like contract law and founding documents are facts. Those stand on their own. Some socialist internet warrior's opinions are worthless.

Any more dumb comments?
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Likes
2,899
No you've been crying that illegal squatters should have the right to squat on my communal land as long as it isn't singularly owned. Not only inconsistent but you don't have the right to decide what others should and should not allow on their communal land. If I need to I can cite about 10 intance where you've been pounding the table on that very point. Funny how you dumm socialists always seem to like to twist the truth and/or redefine terms once your argument gets slammed.

Yes. Again, you're free to leave anytime thereby breaking free form that constitution which you hate so much...don't let the wall hit you on the rear as you leave. Further we have something known as consent of the governed here. Since you obviously not only never took a class or bothered to learn about contract law, I'm definitely not surprised to learn you aren't familiar with basic government concepts in our nation either.



Again, "all men" is a term used within a specific conctact between two specific parties: the US citizens and the US representatives. It isn't a contract for all men dummy, it is a two party contract which has language that applies to both parties. You and your socialist buddy can sign your own two party contract saying "all muslims must be killed", that doesn't make it binding on everyone in the world to kill all muslims (because libertum signed a contract so we must kill muslims in the middle east), just you and the other party that signed it would be bound to it. Why is this so hard for your peabrain to understand?

Further since like most socialists you're probably an atheist, you don't believe in a Creator endowing inalienable rights so the point is moot for you.



Again, if my forebearers fought for freedom, it was not just for themselves but for their progeny. Read their own writings which say exactly that. Of course you probably have spent a total of 0 minutes actually reading any founding documents or writings, which is painfully obvious based on your uneducated ramblings and arguments. Just like if your parent left you an inheritance, my founding fathers left me the inheritance of this Christian republic (what's left of it at this point at least).



Sorry no one cares about your opinion. Let's stick to the facts. Things like contract law and founding documents are facts. Those stand on their own. Some socialist internet warrior's opinions are worthless.

Any more dumb comments?
As I said previously, you're opinion rich and fact poor.
You fought for no land, yet try to cover yourself with inexistent glory. And you own no Christian republic, either.
Most ridiculous of all is your misguided notion that if I don't agree with you I must therefore do this or that. Don't you get it? You don't get to tell others what to do; that's the whole point.

You provide no actual refutations to any of my points, nor bring up any logical counter-arguments. All you've got is lame attempts at attacking the messenger while you duck, weave and distort the message, which you obviously can't refute. You desperately resort to name calling; atheist, socialist or just dummy. Strictly low-brow.

Just so you have a shot at understanding this: supporting gov't control of the economy, immigration and trade IS socialism... Combine that with nationalism and you get a particularly familiar flavor.

Try to do better, goldie. If you do make any point worthy of a response from me, I will provide one.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
No Refuge: Sessions ends Obama-era Aslyum protections
RT America



Published on Jun 13, 2018
Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered federal judges to stop granting asylum to most of the tens of thousands of applicants who say they are fleeing gang violence and domestic abuse in their home countries. This reverses the Obama administration’s guidance and will affect most of the people form Central American. For more on this, RT’America Anya Parampil is joined by Allen Orr.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Honduran mom claims her baby was snatched away by immigration officers as she breastfed at a detention centre... now author Padma Lakshmi says it's time to stand up to Trump's zero-tolerance policy

  • A woman claims her baby daughter was snatched from her in a detention center
  • The woman, an illegal immigrant, was breastfeeding when her child was taken
  • She's one of many to have been separated from her children in detention centers
  • Author Padma Lakshmi, who moved to the US at four said it could have been her
  • She called on Americans to stand up to the new no tolerance policy
  • The new policy sees all adults prosecuted for trying to cross border illegally
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-snatched-away-immigration-breastfeeding.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Good Samaritan buys PIZZA for 54 illegal immigrants found inside tractor-trailer in Texas after learning the group hadn't eaten and was only provided water

  • Tow truck driver Armando Colunga bought pizza for a group of undocumented immigrants
  • He had been watching the news when he caught word about the 54 individuals found in a tractor-trailer Tuesday night
  • Authorities said the suspected illegal immigrants were huddled in the back of an 18-wheeler in San Antonio
  • Five people from the group were injured trying to flee the truck and were taken to the hospital for minor injuries
  • The rest were searched and fed pizza before being taken to a detention center
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...za-54-illegal-immigrants-tractor-trailer.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
'Separating babies from their mothers is immoral': Catholic leaders denounce Trump's zero-tolerance border protection policy

  • Catholic leaders are criticizing the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy
  • Cardinal Daniel DiNardo said on Wednesday during the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that separating mothers from their children is 'immoral'
  • DiNardo said the government needs to find another way to protect the border
  • Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley also criticized the policy calling it 'harmful and unjust'
  • In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a crackdown on immigration saying that families who enter the country illegally will be prosecuted
  • Trump, in a tweet last month, blamed the 'horrible law' on Democrats
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ps-zero-tolerance-policy-calling-immoral.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Republicans scramble to figure out next steps on immigration after Trump scuttles plan

NBC News
Rebecca Shabad
16 mins ago



WASHINGTON — Republicans are scrambling to figure their next move on immigration after President Trump said Friday that he wouldn't sign the GOP compromise bill House GOP leaders released to lawmakers Thursday afternoon.

The new uncertainty comes just days after Speaker Paul Ryan told Republican members the president fully endorsed their decision to hold a pair of immigration votes next week.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise's team had been planning to gather support for the measure at the final vote series of the week Friday, ahead of planned votes next week on that bill and a more conservative one sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. — but that plan was put on pause after the president's remarks.

A House GOP leadership source told NBC News that the strategy is on hold while members seek more clarity on the White House's position, with Republicans planning to return to the discussion next week. House GOP Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry said Friday the vote counting was on hold until then because presidential buy-in was essential. "House Republicans are not going to take on immigration without the support and endorsement of President Trump," he said.

In an interview on "Fox and Friends" Friday morning outside the White House, the president said he's looking at both bills, but that he "most certainly won't sign the more moderate one."

Trump's threat shocked Capitol Hill, where leaders had stressed White House involvement in the process surrounding negotiations over the measure. Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told his members earlier this week that he had spoken to Trump about the planned immigration strategy and that the president was excited about it. The bill itself was based on the president's immigration plan, he said, saying at a press conference earlier this week that Republicans had been "working hand in glove with the administration on this."

The compromise bill released Thursday after two weeks of discussion includes provisions that would provide legal status for people who came to the U.S. illegally as children — including a path to citizenship — bar the separation of children from their parent or legal guardian at the border, and provide $25 billion in additional funding for a wall along the southern U.S. border.

Ryan has long made clear that he only wants to bring legislation up for a floor vote as long as the president will sign it.

"We now have a bill that represents a compromise that is going to be brought to the floor so members can actually vote on legislation tackling this issue and this has a chance of going into law," Ryan said Wednesday.

The decision to craft the compromise bill stemmed from negotiations that led to a deal between moderates and conservatives on Tuesday that would allow floor votes on the two measures next week. That strategy came in reaction to the threat of a discharge petition, though that effort failed to garner 218 signatures needed by the Tuesday deadline in order to trigger immigration floor votes this month.

Now that Trump has signaled his opposition to the bill, moderates could return to the petition, which only needs two more signatures in order to force floor votes on a range of immigration proposals. Discharge petitions can only come to the floor on the second and fourth Mondays of the month when the House is in session, which would mean moderates could still have the opportunity to force floor votes next month, ahead of the lower chamber's month-long August recess.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ter-trump-scuttles-plan/ar-AAyHqDF?ocid=ientp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
White House walks back Trump's rejection of immigration compromise

The Hill
Juliegrace Brufke
47 mins ago

President Trump in fact supports both of the House GOP immigration bills expected to receive votes next week and misspoke earlier Friday when he said that he would oppose a compromise measure between centrists and conservatives, a White House official told The Hill.

"Yes, we fully support both the Goodlatte bill and the Leadership bill. The President misunderstood the question this morning on Fox News," the source said in an email. "He was commenting on the discharge petition/dreamers bill - not the new package. He would 100 percent sign either Goodlatte or the other bill."

Centrists had tried to use a discharge petition to force leadership to move on four different immigration proposals, including one backed by Democrats that protects so-called "Dreamers," beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the rest of House leadership managed to block that attempt earlier this week, and will instead bring forth a pair of immigration bills, including a more hardline measure from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

The president said Friday morning during an appearance on "Fox and Friends" that he was looking at both pieces of legislation, but "certainly wouldn't sign the more moderate one."

His comments resulted in chaos on Capitol Hill, with House Republicans scrapping their plans to whip the legislation - released Thursday evening - crafted following meetings between leadership, centrists and top members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

"We want to get clarity on the president's position on this bill," chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) told reporters. "Republicans are not going to take on immigration without the support and endorsement of President Trump."

Both moderates leading the discharge petition efforts, which would circumvent leadership and force votes on four separate proposals, and conservatives noted the bill was still a work in progress.

Despite the compromise bill coming together following meetings between negotiations from all factions of the GOP, conservatives have expressed concern that it lacks provisions to address e-verify, the guest worker program and sanctuary cities.

The president took to Twitter Friday afternoon to express his support for House Republicans' efforts to come to an agreement on immigration that meets his four pillars: a pathway to citizenship for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an end to "chain migration," the elimination of the visa lottery system and strengthening border security.

The measure also ends the separation of immigrant children and parents at the border, closes "catch and release" immigration loopholes and contains a trigger mechanism to halt the new visas if Congress denies funding for the wall.

-Scott Wong contributed

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-immigration-compromise/ar-AAyHwDe?ocid=ientp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
'This is harassment and racial profiling!' California woman forces Border Patrol agents off a Greyhound bus using the Fourth Amendment after they demanded to see everyone's documents

  • Tiana Smalls was riding a Greyhound bus from Bakersfield to Las Vegas last week
  • As they reached Nevada border patrol, agents tried to inspect their documents
  • Smalls told passengers not to show anything because agents had no authority
  • The agents then allowed the bus to pass without confronting anybody on board
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orces-Border-Patrol-agents-Greyhound-bus.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Two THOUSAND children have been separated from their parents in just six weeks due in part to 'zero tolerance' policy for illegal entry prosecutions

  • Nearly 2,000 children have been separated from their families at US border crossings, between April 19 and May 31, Homeland Security figures show
  • That breaks down to an about 46 children per day being separated from family
  • Those numbers include separations for illegal entry, immigration violations, or possible criminal conduct by the adult responsible for the child
  • President Donald Trump tweeted on Friday that Democrats were to blame for the 'breakup of families at the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda'
  • But a 'zero tolerance' policy announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions has officials now referring all cases of illegal entry for criminal prosecution
  • US protocol prohibits detaining children with their parents because the children are not charged with a crime and the parents are, prompting separation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5849667/About-2-000-minors-separated-families.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
White House calls comments by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough comparing federal action taken under Trump's immigration policies to Nazi tactics 'appalling' and 'shameful'

  • MSNBC's Joe Scarborough's called out 'Nazi'-like actions by federal authorities at US border crossings on Friday, which angered the White House
  • Scarborough pointed out that federal agents at US borders have reportedly been saying children are being taken to 'shower' and never returning with them
  • White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said in a statement provided to Fox News that the comments were 'appalling' and 'shameful'
  • Scarborough made the comment after discussing White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders' repeated declarations that family separations where 'the law'
  • President Donald Trump maintains the Democrats are to blame for separations
  • However, a Trump administration policy shift now treats attempted illegal entry as criminal rather than civil, thus requiring family separations in those situations
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gh-comparing-federal-action-Nazi-tactics.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
'Other governments separated mothers and children': Former CIA director is slammed for comparing Trump's immigration policy to that used by the Nazis during the Holocaust

  • Former CIA director General Michael Hayden sparked outrage on Twitter
  • He shared a picture of Birkenau in Auschwitz and compared it to US immigration
  • 'Other governments separated mothers and children,' he captioned the image
  • When one angry follower asked if he was on drugs, he said 'no, voignier'
  • US immigration policy has seen nearly 2,000 children separated from parents
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-Trumps-immigration-policy-Nazi-Germany.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
GOP, Democrats are outraged but at odds over ending family separation at border

Washington Post
Karoun Demirjian
54 mins ago

Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike on Sunday called for Congress to pass a law ending the Trump administration’s practice of separating and detaining families trying to cross the border into the United States, but the two sides remain sharply divided on what that bill should look like.

The idea of such a legislative solution earned the endorsement even of President Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who said Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” that he thought Attorney General Jeff Sessions was “not giving the president the best advice” on how to handle the situation.

Sessions and officials from the Department of Homeland Security have defended the practice of separately detaining children and parents trying to cross the border, which has led to about 2,000 children being separated from their parents in the past 45 days.

That has earned the Trump administration significant pushback from Democratic lawmakers, several of whom headed to the Texas border and detention centers inland on Sunday to draw attention to the issue and stump for bills they have filed in Congress — which have failed to earn any Republican support.

Republican lawmakers also have registered frustration with the recent detentions, with some, such as Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), questioning whether the number of children separated from parents “may well be higher” than reported.

“The secretary of homeland security said that if parents present at a legal port of entry with their children, with the claim of asylum, that their children would not be taken away — yet there are numerous credible media accounts showing that is exactly what is happening,” Collins said on “Face the Nation,” adding, “The administration needs to put an end to that, right off.”

She rejected the administration’s argument that it was preventing child trafficking, saying “that is not what’s going on.”

“From the experience of previous administrations, it does not act as a deterrent to use children in this fashion,” Collins said, stressing that the practice is “traumatizing” for the children, who are “innocent victims.”

“It is inconsistent with our American values to separate these children from their parents unless there’s evidence of abuse or another very good reason,” she said.

Collins and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) sent a letter to the administration seeking more details about the program. But though she is critical of the Trump administration, Collins was also critical of a Democratic effort led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) to end the family-separation tactics, calling it “too broad.”

Instead, she said, the Senate should “try again” with a bipartisan immigration bill that fell short of the 60-vote procedural threshold earlier this year — a vote that Collins suggested might have been successful had the Department of Homeland Security not “issued an inflammatory news release” the night before “that torpedoed the bill.”

“We should not give up,” Collins said. “We need to fix our immigration laws, and using children is not the answer.”

Democrats in the House are expected to file a measure similar to Feinstein’s this week, according to Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.), speaking Sunday on CNN’s “State of America.” Neither effort is expected to garner Republican support.

But the House will be taking votes on two immigration bills whose fate is uncertain — especially after Trump suggested Friday that he would not sign either one.

Trump’s comments touched off confusion as White House officials swiftly attempted to walk back the remarks, saying he did support the GOP-led efforts, despite suggesting otherwise.

One of the Republican immigration bills, a hard-line effort led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (Va.), is not expected to garner enough support to pass the chamber.

The other, described as a compromise between the moderate and conservative factions of the GOP, fully funds the president’s desired wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, ends the diversity visa lottery and family-based immigration, and incorporates a pathway to citizenship for “dreamers” whose parents brought them to the United States illegally as children.

The measure, which was drafted with White House input, would also stop the practice of family separation, but not the detentions, and applies only to those families that arrive at the border seeking asylum.

Trump is expected to speak to House Republicans directly about immigration and other matters in a meeting on Tuesday ahead of the planned Thursday votes. The president has been anything but conciliatory on the matter.

The president has accused Democrats of promulgating “laws” that have caused family separation at the border — though there are no laws mandating that children be taken away from any adult arriving at the border.

Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), appearing Sunday on CNN, noted that former attorney general Alberto Gonzales had spoken about how the administration has “discretion” at the border — concluding that “clearly this government, this president, is using his discretion” to separate families.

Trump has also blamed Democrats for the migrants’ continued plight, citing their refusal to accept a bill that would fully fund the border wall and end family reunification visas.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) likened the president’s demands to extortion.

“What the administration is doing is they’re using the grief, the tears, the pain of these kids as mortar to build their wall,” Schiff said. “It’s an effort to extort a bill to their liking in the Congress. It’s, I think, deeply unethical.”

O’Rourke said Sunday that Congress would not pass an immigration bill “at the cost of ending family migration, which is the history of this country.”

O’Rourke is one of several Democratic lawmakers who headed to the border and to detention centers this weekend to mark Father’s Day with a public demonstration against the family-separation and child-detention policies.

“I hope to produce the outrage and the public pressure to force those in power to do the right thing,” he said.

“This is inhumane. I’d like to say it’s un-American, but it’s happening right now in America,” O’Rourke added. “We will be judged for what we do or what we fail to do now. This is not just on the Trump administration — this is on all of us.”

karoun.demirjian@washpost.com

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ly-separation-at-border/ar-AAyLTXm?ocid=ientp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Kellyanne Conway says 'nobody likes' separating kids from parents but doubles down on charge it's up to Democrats to fix immigration policy

  • 'As a mother, as a Catholic, as somebody who's got a conscience,' she said on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' I will tell you that nobody likes this policy.'
  • Steve Bannon said Trump is merely enforcing the law
  • Bannon: 'It's a crime to come across illegally, and children get separated. I mean, I hate to say it, that's the law and he's enforcing the law'
  • Trump has repeatedly blamed Democrats for the policy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rating-kids-parents-doubles-blaming-Dems.html
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Melania says she wants the president to govern 'with heart' amid crisis of illegal immigrant children separated from adults – but official insists changes will 'require' Democrats to fund Trump's wall

  • First lady Melania Trump said Sunday that she wants to see an administration that 'governs with heart'
  • She addressed the crisis of illegal immigrant children being housed separately from adult guardians who are being prosecuted for jumping the U.S. border
  • An administration official said Sunday that the situation is no different from other criminals who are separated from their families while in jail awaiting trials
  • Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway said Sunday on 'Meet the Press' that 'nobody likes this policy
  • But 'Congress passed the law that it is a crime to enter this country illegally,' she said; 'so if they don’t like that law, they should change it'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-amid-illegal-immigrant-children-crisis.html
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,023
Likes
2,899
When a parent risks everything to cross the US border, whether they're fleeing poverty, prosecution or violence, in the hopes of a better life, of course they're not going to leave their kids behind if they can help it.

Forcefully separating thousands of children from their family is an unspeakable injustice that can never be undone, atoned for or repaired.
Doing so as a means to push your political agenda forward belies a monstrous kind of cowardice and callousness, and brings shame and infamy to a whole country.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
179,330
Likes
43,412
Lawmakers to Trump: End border separation policy now
CNN



Published on Jun 17, 2018
A group of Democratic lawmakers called on President Donald Trump to end the practice of separating children from their family following their visit to an immigration facility in McAllen, Texas.