Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
exmarx
Feb 18, 2012


The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.
It was reported in late December that the US was planning raids to deport Central American families who had "surged" across the border.

Those raids appear to have begun today

U.S. Begins Immigration Crackdown on Central Americans posted:

The Obama administration this weekend began detaining Central Americans who have evaded deportation orders, launching a crackdown on people illegally in the country amid an increase in migrants trying to cross the southwest border.

Just before Christmas, government officials confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security was planning a clampdown on Central American migrants in January that would include women and children. The operation began in Georgia and Texas, immigration attorneys and advocates said Sunday.

Representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Georgia and Texas declined to comment, saying the Homeland Security agency doesn’t discuss ongoing operations. It was unclear Sunday how many people had been taken into custody.

If the raids spread across the country, they would mark the first large-scale operation mounted specifically against Central Americans.

“We are expecting these raids to occur on a national level” since “these families are all over the country,” said Michelle Mendez, a lawyer with Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., a national immigrant-rights organization.

A DHS official said Sunday that “attempting to unlawfully enter the United States as a family unit does not protect individuals from being subject to the immigration laws of this country.”

“The repatriation of individuals with final orders of removal—including families and unaccompanied minors—to their home countries is part of our broader ongoing effort to address the rising surge of families and individuals arriving at our southern border,” the official added.

Victor Nieblas, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the plight of the immigrants needs to be taken into account. “These Central American women and children are truly refugees seeking asylum; they fear for their lives. These women and children must have a meaningful chance to claim protection instead of being rushed back into harm’s way,” he said.

Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney in Atlanta, said that “we had a mother and her three children taken by ICE, pretending to be looking for a ‘criminal’ and asked to enter the house to check whether he was there.” Mr. Kuck added, “We do not yet know where they were taken.”

Many Central Americans likely to be targeted for removal missed court dates to fight their deportation because they lacked an attorney, advocates say. Public defenders aren’t provided to those in the country illegally.


“Instead of ensuring access to legal counsel and due process so eligibility for asylum can be properly determined, the federal government is sending these families back to the terror and violence they fled. America is better than this,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

On Thursday, more than 150 national and local civil rights groups and religious, children’s and women’s organizations sent a letter to the president opposing planned raids.

The last time targeted roundups occurred on a large scale was about a decade ago, when the George W. Bush administration conducted high-profile raids at meatpacking plants and other work sites to detain undocumented workers.

The number of families trying to enter the U.S. illegally has jumped in recent months as gang-related violence grips El Salvador and Honduras. The region also has been plagued by drought.

Typically, the migrants turn themselves in at the border and make asylum claims. U.S. authorities then release them, often to live with relatives in the U.S., while their cases are adjudicated. Agents can track many of them down with relative ease because the government has their addresses.

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in recent months warned that those whose claims are denied in immigration court could be removed from the country.

Despite an overall sharp drop in illegal entries in recent years, the Obama administration has been bracing for a surge of unaccompanied children and families from Central America in coming months.

In recent weeks, the federal government began to add capacity to handle the increase, because migrants are housed at least temporarily in government facilities.

More than 12,000 individuals in family units were apprehended at the border in October and November, compared with about 4,500 in the same months of 2014. The number of unaccompanied minors caught during those two months topped 10,000, compared with about 5,000 in the same period a year earlier.

That has raised concerns that the number of Central Americans trying to enter the country could jump in 2016, as it did in the summer of 2014, when more than 10,000 Central American minors a month came into the U.S.

In interviews, many of the migrants said they had heard they could remain in the U.S. if they reached the interior of the country.

Some mothers who had crossed with their children were forced to wear electronic bracelets to track their movements and ensure they reported for immigration hearings.

Many families remained detained at the border for months, drawing strong criticism from human-rights groups and immigration attorneys.

A federal judge ruled last year that immigration officials must quickly release from detention centers families with children, posing a further challenge to the administration’s efforts to curb the flow. The administration has appealed.

The Obama administration has been criticized by both immigrant advocates and immigration hard-liners over its border policy. Advocates dub President Barack Obama “deporter in chief” while Republicans accuse him of failing to secure the border.

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeted last week about the looming raids: “Democrats and President Obama are now, because of me, starting to deport people who are here illegally.”

It's worth mentioning America's own role in the destabilisation of Honduras (and subsequent increase in child migrants from there), and that the Obama admin has removed more than 2 million undocumented migrants to date.

There really ought to be a thread on this, so here you go.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ToastyPotato
Jun 23, 2005

CONVICTED OF DISPLAYING HIS PEANUTS IN PUBLIC
I wish there was a website that had all the countries of Latin America on it, and you could just click on them and see a nice concise explanation for how the US hosed it up and why so many flee from there. I'm sure there are numerous books on the subject, but you can't really realistically expect people to read a bunch of books when you bring it up in a discussion. A simple sourced link would be amazing. I think a singular source like that going viral could really change the conversation on immigration, considering I pretty much never hear anyone bring up US involvement in Latin American politics when the topic brought up (outside of someone desperately trying to sum up huge amounts of info in a few sentences off the top of their heads).

esto es malo
Aug 3, 2006

Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-ff-immigration-raids-20160103-story.html

quote:

In Norcross, Ga., on Saturday, Joanna Gutierrez said her niece and niece's 9-year-old son were taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who arrived in an unmarked car and presented Gutierrez with a warrant for a man she didn't know.

Gutierrez says she told the agents they needed a warrant to enter her home. They told her they didn't, she says, and walked inside, checking every room in the house and waking her children. "They were shaking from fear," Gutierrez said of the children in a phone interview Saturday night.

After searching the house, the agents showed Gutierrez a photo of her niece, 30-year-old Ana Lizet Mejia. Mejia fled Honduras when her brother was killed by gangs. She entered the U.S. illegally with her son as part of a wave of Central American migrants seeking refuge from violence in the summer of 2014.

Mejia had never missed a court date, Gutierrez said, and wore an ankle monitor provided by the court.

"Why abuse a person who is already in the control of the court?" Gutierrez said.

According to an online inmate locater, Mejia and her son are now in custody, though ICE officials would not confirm the raids and did not give any details on the fates of the families detained or confirm whether they were being held.

So uh, any resident lawyers know what the rationale is for not needing a warrant?

also

quote:

Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney in Atlanta, said

what an unfortunate name

acejackson42
Mar 27, 2005

You didn't say what I think you said...

ToastyPotato posted:

I wish there was a website that had all the countries of Latin America on it, and you could just click on them and see a nice concise explanation for how the US hosed it up and why so many flee from there. I'm sure there are numerous books on the subject, but you can't really realistically expect people to read a bunch of books when you bring it up in a discussion. A simple sourced link would be amazing. I think a singular source like that going viral could really change the conversation on immigration, considering I pretty much never hear anyone bring up US involvement in Latin American politics when the topic brought up (outside of someone desperately trying to sum up huge amounts of info in a few sentences off the top of their heads).

That website would be so large and so absolutely convolutedly intermeshed that horrific screw-ups in code would result and it would automatically crash your browser, fry your motherboard and feces would spray from the headphones jack. People really have no idea how responsible the U.S. is for almost every conflict and problem in that part of the world. Literally the root of all evil.

My question is how in the holy hell is Fox News going to fit this into their 'Obama does everything wrong always' and 'we really, really hate immigrants' storylines? We're going to get a Scanners-llike implosion from the cognitive dissonance.

esto es malo
Aug 3, 2006

Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

acejackson42 posted:

That website would be so large and so absolutely convolutedly intermeshed that horrific screw-ups in code would result and it would automatically crash your browser, fry your motherboard and feces would spray from the headphones jack.

My question is how in the holy hell is Fox News going to fit this into their 'Obama does everything wrong always' and 'we really, really hate immigrants' storylines? We're going to get a Scanners-llike implosion from the cognitive dissonance.

Easily, he's not taking all of them and he should have done it sooner.

ToastyPotato
Jun 23, 2005

CONVICTED OF DISPLAYING HIS PEANUTS IN PUBLIC

acejackson42 posted:

That website would be so large and so absolutely convolutedly intermeshed that horrific screw-ups in code would result and it would automatically crash your browser, fry your motherboard and feces would spray from the headphones jack. People really have no idea how responsible the U.S. is for almost every conflict and problem in that part of the world. Literally the root of all evil.

My question is how in the holy hell is Fox News going to fit this into their 'Obama does everything wrong always' and 'we really, really hate immigrants' storylines? We're going to get a Scanners-llike implosion from the cognitive dissonance.


joeburz posted:

Easily, he's not taking all of them and he should have done it sooner.

Yeah, they are going to criticize his success rate when he leaves office, and basically call it too little too late. They will also say he only did it because conservatives made him.

acejackson42
Mar 27, 2005

You didn't say what I think you said...

joeburz posted:

Easily, he's not taking all of them and he should have done it sooner.

Ah, there you go. I just really wanted to hear Fox actually say Obama was doing something good or see them take up the mantle of the poor, oppressed immigrants. Either would have been hilarious.

So, why can't we let them all stay? They're all running from something that's probably going to kill them and deserve shelter. Sometimes when that happens you have to get out and get out fast and documentation is impossible. We have the room, so why not the U.S.?

So, why can't we send them all back where they came from? They came here with no documentation or intention of doing so legally and for all we know the very people who are causing the situations down there are among the people running. So get them out of the U.S.?

Berke Negri
Feb 15, 2012

Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao


joeburz posted:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-ff-immigration-raids-20160103-story.html


So uh, any resident lawyers know what the rationale is for not needing a warrant?


They would still need a warrant to search a non-citizens home, which is moot anyways with the case here as unless I'm mistaken the home owner in this situation was a citizen, they were there for her niece.

CalmDownMate
Dec 3, 2015

by Shine
Unfortunately if they were fleeing Central America hoping to find something better in the USA they were wrong and they wasted their time.

People talking about these countries being hosed up ignore the people in the nations who were duplicit in allowing these things to happen.

esto es malo
Aug 3, 2006

Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Berke Negri posted:

They would still need a warrant to search a non-citizens home, which is moot anyways with the case here as unless I'm mistaken the home owner in this situation was a citizen, they were there for her niece.

you would imagine they would need a warrant in pretty much every situation, but i am not a lawyer because no one should be

TROIKA CURES GREEK
Jun 30, 2015

by R. Guyovich

ToastyPotato posted:

I wish there was a website that had all the countries of Latin America on it, and you could just click on them and see a nice concise explanation for how the US hosed it up and why so many flee from there. I'm sure there are numerous books on the subject, but you can't really realistically expect people to read a bunch of books when you bring it up in a discussion. A simple sourced link would be amazing. I think a singular source like that going viral could really change the conversation on immigration, considering I pretty much never hear anyone bring up US involvement in Latin American politics when the topic brought up (outside of someone desperately trying to sum up huge amounts of info in a few sentences off the top of their heads).

This isn't how persuasion works and wikipedia already exists. Besides that the US won't even come to a consensus on what proper reparations for jim crow are, never mind for every country in the world we played some role in a half century ago. Finally the idea that one could write an unbiased "concise" explanation is laughable to begin with. Much like Africa and the Middle east, the story is a lot more complex than 'the west hosed everything up', which is precisely why people form different opinions on the subject in accordance with their understanding of the facts as filtered through their existing world views and biases.

joeburz posted:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-ff-immigration-raids-20160103-story.html


So uh, any resident lawyers know what the rationale is for not needing a warrant?


quote:

In Norcross, Ga., on Saturday, Joanna Gutierrez said her niece and niece's 9-year-old son were taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who arrived in an unmarked car and presented Gutierrez with a warrant for a man she didn't know.

It really depends on what exactly the warrant said, which I'm guessing allowed the agents to search that specific residence. "I don't know that person" doesn't void the warrant for obvious reasons.

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.
The article didn't go into much detail about the asylum claims, which would presumably prevent deportation until they've been resolved. Are those claims just being rejected en masse?

esto es malo
Aug 3, 2006

Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:


It really depends on what exactly the warrant said, which I'm guessing allowed the agents to search that specific residence. "I don't know that person" doesn't void the warrant for obvious reasons.

If you're consiering the warrant for someone completely unrelated, how exactly does that result in the extraction of two completely different people?

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich

I'm not really sure how Hillary Clinton organizing states in the Western Hemisphere to demand Honduras hold elections after the coup did anything to further destabilize the country. And an opinion piece by a hardcore Chavista doesn't help to answer the question.

Berke Negri
Feb 15, 2012

Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao


joeburz posted:

you would imagine they would need a warrant in pretty much every situation, but i am not a lawyer because no one should be

You do need a warrant in every situation, barring you're walking past a home and someone is screaming "help, help im being murdered" or some such.

Radbot
Aug 12, 2009
Probation
Can't post for 4 years!

Berke Negri posted:

You do need a warrant in every situation, barring you're walking past a home and someone is screaming "help, help im being murdered" or some such.

Ah yes, the "high school civics lesson" form of exigent circumstances.

Berke Negri
Feb 15, 2012

Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao


Xandu posted:

The article didn't go into much detail about the asylum claims, which would presumably prevent deportation until they've been resolved. Are those claims just being rejected en masse?

If many of these asylum claims are being brought forward due to "gang violence" those generally don't do well at all in the courts, since it is not enough to just prove that a person is in fear of their life because of gang-related crime. The individual would have to prove that they fear for their life because of persecution on the grounds of things like religion, race, or political nature to qualify. If you don't have any attorney representation this is going to be probably impossible to do.

exmarx
Feb 18, 2012


The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

Xandu posted:

The article didn't go into much detail about the asylum claims, which would presumably prevent deportation until they've been resolved. Are those claims just being rejected en masse?

The linked WaPo article in the OP has a little more

quote:

While most public attention focused on minors who were crossing the border alone, the number of children who came with a family member — known as “family units’’ in DHS parlance — also spiked dramatically.

With the government overwhelmed at first, many of the families were simply released and told to appear at later immigration court dates to determine if they would be granted asylum.

Some never showed up or had their asylum claims rejected and were ordered deported by immigration judges, officials familiar with the process said. That population is among those expected to be targeted in the upcoming raids, they said.

Immigrant rights advocates and legal experts say the families and minors were in many cases not granted adequate representation and were confused by the asylum procedures in court.


JeffersonClay posted:

I'm not really sure how Hillary Clinton organizing states in the Western Hemisphere to demand Honduras hold elections after the coup did anything to further destabilize the country. And an opinion piece by a hardcore Chavista doesn't help to answer the question.

By publicly claiming to support Zelaya while secretly supporting the military coup and endorsing a sham election
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/06/clinton-honduras-coup/
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exc...rica_democracy/

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Berke Negri posted:

They would still need a warrant to search a non-citizens home, which is moot anyways with the case here as unless I'm mistaken the home owner in this situation was a citizen, they were there for her niece.

They don't need a warrant to search anyone's home if the homeowner invites or even allows law enforcement to enter.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Berke Negri posted:

If many of these asylum claims are being brought forward due to "gang violence" those generally don't do well at all in the courts, since it is not enough to just prove that a person is in fear of their life because of gang-related crime. The individual would have to prove that they fear for their life because of persecution on the grounds of things like religion, race, or political nature to qualify. If you don't have any attorney representation this is going to be probably impossible to do.

Right. Asylum claims based on criminal activity alone almost always fail. The person seeking asylum must prove that local government is somehow negligent or collaborating with the criminals targeting the asylum seeker. I've seen all kinds of I-589 claims from Mexicans and Salvadorans fail because they didn't demonstrate any link between maras and local government.

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich

Exclamation Marx posted:

By publicly claiming to support Zelaya while secretly supporting the military coup and endorsing a sham election
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/06/clinton-honduras-coup/
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exc...rica_democracy/

Money quote:

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/ posted:

it’s impossible to accuse Clinton of foreknowledge of the coup. Likewise, no smoking gun exists to definitively conclude that Clinton and her associates actively and willfully acted to maintain the coup government in league with the elite and corporate interests

Volcott
Mar 30, 2010

People paying American dollars to let other people know they didn't agree with someone's position on something is the lifeblood of these forums.
Have you considered the possibility that the United States is actually really cool and didn't do anything wrong?

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich
I think it would be pretty easy to prove that the US was responsible for the conditions which created this wave of migration from Central America and Honduras in particular. Relying on some unsupported "Clinton caused the coup!" story seems like a hard way to go about that but :shrug:

In regards to Obama's policy here, I think it's a whole lot easier to make the case "we should defer the enforcement of immigration law towards the parents of American citizens who have lived in the US for over five years" than "we should defer the enforcement of immigration law towards recent immigrants". And if he's arguing the former case won't cause more immigrants to come to the US without documentation, then he's committed to rejecting the latter case.

JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jan 5, 2016

Untagged
Mar 29, 2004

Hey, does your planet have wiper fluid yet or you gonna freak out and start worshiping us?

joeburz posted:


So uh, any resident lawyers know what the rationale is for not needing a warrant?

It's generally held that Law Enforcement may enter a residence to search for/arrest a wanted subject named in a warrant if they have a reasonable belief that the person named on the warrant lives at the house. The article doesn't exactly explain how the officers came to be at the house, and it's possible it is the last known address, etc. The officers may also enter a residence of a third party person to search for/arrest a wanted subject in certain special circumstances. As noted above just telling the cops you don't know someone or they don't live there doesn't necessarily change the situation if they have other information available.

quote:


U.S. v. Magluta, FEB95, 11Cir No. 93-5069.

We think it sufficient to hold that in order for law enforcement officials to enter a residence to execute an arrest warrant for a resident of the premises, the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the law enforcement agents, when viewed in the totality, must warrant a reasonable belief that the location to be searched is the suspect's dwelling, and that the suspect is within the residence at the time of entry.


But that may all be moot. The article quickly mentions them asking about her niece, who is under court supervised release. Conditions of that release usually involve a certain waiver of rights to search and seizure, ie. ankle monitor and person and home checks. So if the niece lived with her aunt, they could likely enter the residence anyway.

exmarx
Feb 18, 2012


The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

quote:

The US Department of Homeland Security chief forcefully defended the start of a controversial deportation operation that resulted in the apprehension of 121 adults and children, mostly Central American immigrants who sought legal asylum in the United States but were ordered to leave the country.

“As I have said repeatedly, our borders are not open to illegal migration; if you come here illegally, we will send you back consistent with our laws and values,” Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security, said on Monday.

Johnson and other officials said those who were detained over the weekend were largely Central American migrants who had crossed the southern border illegally after 1 May 2014 and were subject to final orders of removal from an immigration court. Raids in Georgia, North Carolina and Texas accounted for the majority of those now in custody, though Johnson characterized them as part of “concerted, nationwide enforcement operations”.

While harsh and, at times, inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants has emerged on the 2016 presidential campaign trail, a senior administration official said the raids had “nothing to do with the caterwaulings of any member of the political class”. Instead, the action reflected, the official said, a longstanding reaction to the increase in Central American families and unaccompanied children attempting to cross the US-Mexico border.

Johnson said that additional surges in immigration enforcement “will continue to occur as appropriate”.

The deportation campaign amounts to the first large-scale effort to deport people who fled violence from drug wars in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Belize.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-authorities-begin-deportations-of-central-american-asylum-seekers

esto es malo
Aug 3, 2006

Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

so basically its talked up as a deterrent to future people seeking asylum/immigration that would likely be denied due to fearing gang violence rather than explicitly government-based discrimination or action.

im sure people fleeing for their lives would rather take a gamble than simply be killed by criminal gangs that are working in the absence of anything remotely resembling effective governance, so this seems pointless outside of political theatre

on the left
Nov 2, 2013
I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt

joeburz posted:

im sure people fleeing for their lives would rather take a gamble than simply be killed by criminal gangs that are working in the absence of anything remotely resembling effective governance, so this seems pointless outside of political theatre

Illegal immigration means that those criminal gangs can operate in the US with impunity.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009
I'm kinda curious how the people criticizing the president on this think that the immigration system should be handled. When people from countries other than Mexico are apprehended illegally crossing the border, they're given a court hearing rather than being immediately deported. At that hearing asylum claims are either accepted or rejected. Those whose applications for refugee status was denied are then subject to deportation. What is Obama doing wrong in this case?

How do you think it should work?

Sucrose fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jan 7, 2016

suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Sucrose posted:

I'm kinda curious how the people criticizing the president on this think that the immigration system should be handled. When people from countries other than Mexico are apprehended illegally crossing the border, they're given a court hearing rather than being immediately deported. At that hearing asylum claims are either accepted or rejected. Those whose applications for refugee status was denied are then subject to deportation. What is Obama doing wrong in this case?

How do you think it should work?

obviously obummer should just ignore the law~

Effectronica
May 31, 2011
Fallen Rib

Sucrose posted:

I'm kinda curious how the people criticizing the president on this think that the immigration system should be handled. When people from countries other than Mexico are apprehended illegally crossing the border, they're given a court hearing rather than being immediately deported. At that hearing asylum claims are either accepted or rejected. Those whose applications for refugee status was denied are then subject to deportation. What is Obama doing wrong in this case?

How do you think it should work?

Probably we should allow claims of asylum for situations like the ones these people faced and are going to be facing again, which we do not currently. Probably we shouldn't treat people making a claim of asylum by throwing them into prison for a few months. Probably we should behave humanely, and also overthrow those who find excuses for inhumane behavior.

feedmegin
Jul 30, 2008

Thread title implies Obama himself is putting on a Homeland Security jacket and busting down these people's doors in person before throwing them across the border.

Disappointing. You know Putin would do it.

suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Effectronica posted:

Probably we should allow claims of asylum for situations like the ones these people faced and are going to be facing again, which we do not currently. Probably we shouldn't treat people making a claim of asylum by throwing them into prison for a few months. Probably we should behave humanely, and also overthrow those who find excuses for inhumane behavior.

The issue though is that civil servants and law enforcement and other state employees kinda need to follow lawful instructions and criticising them for doing their job becomes silly at some point. It would be more on point to complain about Obama:argh: not doing enough to change those laws.

Effectronica
May 31, 2011
Fallen Rib

blowfish posted:

The issue though is that civil servants and law enforcement and other state employees kinda need to follow lawful instructions and criticising them for doing their job becomes silly at some point. It would be more on point to complain about Obama:argh: not doing enough to change those laws.

In reality, kid, there's always a lot of flexibility with how these are implemented. The way they are currently implemented, in addition to the legal inadequacies, is inhumane.

CalmDownMate
Dec 3, 2015

by Shine

Effectronica posted:

Probably we should allow claims of asylum for situations like the ones these people faced and are going to be facing again, which we do not currently. Probably we shouldn't treat people making a claim of asylum by throwing them into prison for a few months. Probably we should behave humanely, and also overthrow those who find excuses for inhumane behavior.

But everyone from central america wants to come here. If they could half the population would apply for asylum.

I know Guatemalans who have come here on student visas and stuck around transferring between schools praying they can find a American they can marry just so they don't have to go back despite not having a single job opportunity here.

Allowing them to come here and live is not going to fix the main problem. And it's not going to make things better for us either.

These countries are bad yes. But they are hardly the war torn Syria. Their murder rates are high but the vast majority of the population is not going to die. Their houses aren't being bombed. There is still food available.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

SallyStruthers posted:

Probably we should allow claims of asylum for situations like the ones these people faced and are going to be facing again, which we do not currently. Probably we shouldn't treat people making a claim of asylum by throwing them into prison for a few months. Probably we should behave humanely, and also overthrow those who find excuses for inhumane behavior.

It's embarrassing when someone as pretentious as you makes such a clueless comment.

Claims of asylum are allowed for a year after an individual enters the US, affirmatively or defensively, unless the individual has been convicted of an aggravated felony. The 589 is one of the only immigration forms that is free. An asylum application does not result in the claimant being thrown in prison. Asylum is inherently a humanitarian benefit.

Your shitpost is empty of anything but "let's give everyone with Big Sad Eyes or Magnificent Ethnic Headgear asylum because, like, reasons." Go ahead, get Mad and do the Fierce now and threaten me with death.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO
May 8, 2006
This is the thread where we remember that maybe there isn't such a big difference between Trump and the rest of us, after all. Great steps for Obama and the whole Democrat Party to take towards dismantling all those rhetorical barriers and enforcing the physical ones.

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich
DACA and DAPA apply to more than 5 million undocumented immigrants. I'd say that's a pretty big difference between The republicans and Obama.

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.
Apparently they've only deported 121 people (well, so far anyway), which feels pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I wonder how they selected them though. It doesn't feel like enough to have any real impact with regards to immigration, but they don't seemed to have been specifically going after felons or something.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011
I think ICE might be stepping up compliance with the Morton Memo from 2011, prioritizing removal cases and pushing prosecutorial discretion and pretermination of non-priority removal cases.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

exmarx
Feb 18, 2012


The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

quote:

U.S. immigration officials are planning a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, according to sources and an internal document seen by Reuters.

The operation would likely be the largest deportation sweep targeting immigrant families by the administration of President Barack Obama this year after a similar drive over two days in January that focused on Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina.

Those raids, which resulted in the detention of 121 people, mostly women and children, sparked an outcry from immigration advocates and criticism from some Democrats, including the party's presidential election frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has now told field offices nationwide to launch a 30-day "surge" of arrests focused on mothers and children who have already been told to leave the United States, the document seen by Reuters said. The operation would also cover minors who have entered the country without a guardian and since turned 18 years of age, the document said. Two sources confirmed the details of the plan.

The exact dates of the latest series of raids were not known and the details of the operation could change.

The operation in January marked a departure for ICE, part of the Department of Homeland Security, from one-off deportations to high-profile raids meant to deter migrants from coming to the United States.

An ICE spokeswoman said the agency does not "confirm or deny the existence of specific ongoing or future law enforcement actions." The spokeswoman said immigrants who arrived illegally after Jan. 1, 2014 are priorities for removal.

Federal resources were strained in 2014 under a wave of illegal migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, especially women and children fleeing violence in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-deportation-exclusive-idUSKCN0Y32J1

  • Locked thread