Border Patrol Disasters

[apple1]

(Warning: My opinion, I could be wrong).

This upcoming ICE raid thing is IMO intended to serve two functions: Dog whistle to his base, and distraction to keep discussion down about Trump's involvement in the Epstein evil.

Edited July 12, 2019 by apple1

[fraurosena]

 

[candygirl200413]

So when he had the first raid a couple of weeks ago it got canceled because people know about it so how is this one different?

[Dreadcrumbs]

1 hour ago, candygirl200413 said:

So when he had the first raid a couple of weeks ago it got canceled because people know about it so how is this one different?

I haven't seen a list of cities like the last time there was supposed to be raid.

ETA: https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_6c12e938-a40c-11e9-96df-1b6c2bc85bb7.html

sounds more like raids got delayed.

ETA more: Vice has a list:

I'll see if I can find another source aside from Vice.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Dreadcrumbs
d'oh, misread something

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I know Chicago is on it because the mayor already announced they will not allow ICE access to police records nor will the city help ICE in other ways.

the concern is she can block ICE from he records, but not some other federal agencies and if they demand them her hands are tied.

 

[AmericanRose]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/care-every-american-would-be-proud-of-pence-lauds-conditions-at-texas-border-facility/ar-AAEfcjM?ocid=spartanntp

No worries; Pence visited a detention center in TX and everything was fine!

[Ozlsn]

5 hours ago, AmericanRose said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/care-every-american-would-be-proud-of-pence-lauds-conditions-at-texas-border-facility/ar-AAEfcjM?ocid=spartanntp

No worries; Pence visited a detention center in TX and everything was fine!

Can he and his family be detained there for let's say 6 months and see if his opinion changes?

[fraurosena]

Just look at that sanctimonious prick as he stands there with his arms folded on his chest. ?

Also, note how he only visited the men being held prisoner. He didn’t go anywhere near the women and children kept in appalling conditions in cages. 

Edited July 13, 2019 by fraurosena
Autocorrect riffle

[Howl]

 

[formergothardite]

1 minute ago, Howl said:

 

I was just thinking that Pence's reaction was one of the most unChrist like thing a person could do. Jesus was super big into reaching out to those that society viewed as worthless. And *gasp* he actually, Pence, hung out with women! 

[Dreadcrumbs]

This reaction is exactly why I agonize over contacting my representatives. I can't fathom these 3 Republicans caring enough. Rubio has been tweeting Bible verses and shit about other countries' affairs, Scott was our governor, and the congressman has asked for more money for baby cages.

These men don't truly care what we think or what God thinks. They think they know better than any of us or God himself.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Dreadcrumbs
addition

[Howl]

I think part of the ultra serious faces on these assholes looking at their caged fellow humans is that the stench of hundreds of closely packed male bodies unwashed for days or weeks was so very close to overwhelming, and nobody wanted to gag or throw up on camera.  They are all thinking, How soon can we get the fluck out of here? 

Also, where are the toilets for all of these people? Are they marched outside to port-a-potties for bathroom breaks? How do they distribute food? 

Keep in mind that "detainees" at these and other shelters are so closely packed that not everyone can lay down at once; some of so packed that no one can lie down.  This is deliberate. 

[fraurosena]

 

[Ozlsn]

10 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I was just thinking that Pence's reaction was one of the most unChrist like thing a person could do. Jesus was super big into reaching out to those that society viewed as worthless. And *gasp* he actually, Pence, hung out with women! 

To quote Matthew 25:41-44

"41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

I don't know who the hell Pence is following, but it's not Jesus of Nazareth.

[FloraKitty35]

Pence is a soulless hypocrite.  He scares me more than Trump, because he is a religious zealot.  

[GreyhoundFan]

This is disgusting:

 

[Dandruff]

On 7/13/2019 at 6:41 PM, Ozlsn said:

I don't know who the hell Pence is following, but it's not Jesus of Nazareth.

Begins with a T.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course: "Trump administration moves to restrict asylum access, aiming to curb Central American migration"

Spoiler

The Trump administration decreed sweeping changes to U.S. asylum policies Monday, in a move aimed at curtailing the soaring number of Central Americans who have arrived across the southern border seeking refuge.

A joint statement from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice said the Trump administration on Tuesday will publish an interim final rule that will sharply restrict access to the U.S. asylum system for anyone who did not seek protection from other countries through which they transited before reaching the United States.

The move is almost certain to trigger swift legal challenges, because the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains broad provisions allowing foreigners who reach U.S. soil to apply for asylum if they claim a fear of persecution in their native countries. An American Civil Liberties Union attorney who has been challenging Trump administration immigration policies in court said the organization would seek an injunction “immediately.”

Trump administration officials say the executive change to U.S. immigration law is needed to stem the soaring number of asylum claims filed by border crossers, particularly from Central America. Administration officials have claimed that many asylum seekers are taking advantage of the safeguards to gain easy entry into the United States.

The majority of those who claim fear at the U.S. southern border are granted access to the U.S. immigration system, and many are released from custody while their claims are pending in U.S. courts. Because the courts are clogged with a backlog of nearly one million cases, it can take months or years before asylum applicants go before a judge.

Administration officials point to the relatively low number of Central American applicants who are ultimately granted asylum by the courts — fewer than 20 percent — as evidence that a majority of their claims are without merit.

U.S. border agents are on pace to make more than a million arrests this year, the highest number in more than a decade, and administration officials say “loopholes” in the asylum system have become a powerful magnet for migrants seeking a better life.

Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico last month to compel its government to interdict more migrants, and the accord reached between the two countries included a provision to partner on a regionwide overhaul of asylum policies. In particular, the United States is seeking more latitude to swiftly deport border-crossers who claim fear of persecution, and the deal with Mexico allowed for the expansion of the Migration Protection Protocols, which require asylum seekers to wait outside U.S. territory while their claims are processed.

U.S. officials also have been in talks with the Guatemalan government on a deal that would require its government to provide refuge to asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador, but the country’s highest court has blocked the plan. President Jimmy Morales canceled a planned trip to meet with President Trump in Washington this week.

The changes announced Monday, if implemented, potentially would give the Trump administration broad power to deny asylum to a wide range of migrants seeking refuge. In the case of an asylum-seeker from El Salvador, for example, if an applicant traveled through Guatemala and Mexico to reach U.S. soil, that migrant would first have to seek asylum in either of those two countries.

Less clear is whether the United States would be able to deport such applicants back to the nations they pass through along their journey, because the transit nations would have to agree to take them and provide protection.

White House, Justice Department and DHS officials briefed congressional staffers about the asylum change during a conference call Monday morning, during which Democratic aides repeatedly questioned the administration about the policy’s legality and whether it is consistent with U.S. law, according to a person on the call.

The administration insisted that it had the authority under the asylum provisions of the INA, although officials did not go into specifics.

The administration said the new changes would allow applicants to seek U.S. protections if they are denied refuge by other nations before reaching U.S. territory, if they are a victim of human trafficking or if they arrive via a nation that is not a signatory to international treaties against torture and persecution.

Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who has led efforts to contest the Trump administration’s immigration policies in court, said the organization will challenge the new asylum rule, arguing that it is inconsistent with U.S. and international law.

“The administration is effectively trying to end asylum at the southern border,” Gelernt said. “The administration has already tried once to enact an asylum ban for individuals who cross between ports of entry and the courts struck it down because Congress has made a commitment to provide protection to individuals regardless of where they cross. The administration is now attempting an even broader bar on asylum based on which countries you transited through, but Congress made clear that it’s irrelevant whether you had to walk through other countries to get to safe haven in the United States.”

Trump administration officials on Monday characterized the move as a stopgap measure, applied in the absence of congressional changes to U.S. immigration laws.

“Until Congress can act, this interim rule will help reduce a major ‘pull’ factor driving irregular migration to the United States and enable DHS and DOJ to more quickly and efficiently process cases originating from the southern border, leading to fewer individuals transiting through Mexico on a dangerous journey,” DHS Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan said in a written statement. “Ultimately, today’s action will reduce the overwhelming burdens on our domestic system caused by asylum seekers failing to seek urgent protection in the first available country, economic migrants lacking a legitimate fear of persecution, and the transnational criminal organizations, traffickers, and smugglers exploiting our system for profits.”

Attorney General William P. Barr said the United States is a “generous country,” but the U.S. immigration court system — run by the Justice Department — is being “completely overwhelmed” by the flood of applicants crossing the southern border.

Barr said the change would curb what he called “forum shopping by economic migrants,” referring to what immigration restrictionists say is a growing trend of refuge-seekers attempting to reach their most-desired destination rather than the first place that provides a safe haven.

“The large number of meritless asylum claims places an extraordinary strain on the nation’s immigration system, undermines many of the humanitarian purposes of asylum, has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis of human smuggling, and adversely impacts the United States’ ongoing diplomatic negotiations with foreign countries,” a joint government statement read. “This rule mitigates the strain on the country’s immigration system by more efficiently identifying aliens who are misusing the asylum system to enter and remain in the United States rather than legitimately seeking urgent protection from persecution or torture.”

 

[WiseGirl]

This is filling my feed today.  It is alarming as hell.

Spoiler

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by WiseGirl
added text

[fraurosena]

A very dark day indeed.

 

[Dreadcrumbs]

It will only get darker, I'm afraid.

[fraurosena]

A seriously sick toddler was forced to make a Sophie's Choice by a Border Patrol agent. How cruel can you get? Did he think he was being clever because her name is Sofi? Did it make him feel all manly and strong? How inferior must you feel to need to resort to terrifying toddlers in order to feel good about yourself?

Thankfully this story has a happy ending. For now.

3-Year-Old Asked To Pick Parent In Attempted Family Separation, Her Parents Say

Quote

At a Border Patrol holding facility in El Paso, Texas, an agent told a Honduran family that one parent would be sent to Mexico while the other parent and their three children could stay in the United States, according to the family. The agent turned to the couple's youngest daughter — 3-year-old Sofia, whom they call Sofi — and asked her to make a choice.

"The agent asked her who she wanted to go with, mom or dad," her mother, Tania, told NPR through an interpreter. "And the girl, because she is more attached to me, she said mom. But when they started to take [my husband] away, the girl started to cry. The officer said, 'You said [you want to go] with mom.' "

Tania and her husband, Joseph, said they spent parts of two days last week trying to prevent the Border Patrol from separating their family. They were aided by a doctor who had examined Sofi and pleaded with agents not to separate the family, Joseph and Tania said. [NPR is not using migrants' last names in this story because these are people who are in the middle of immigration proceedings.]

Morning Edition reported last week on the Honduran family, who were sent back to Juárez, Mexico, after crossing into El Paso in April. They are part of a Trump administration program called Migrant Protection Protocols — also known as "remain in Mexico" — which requires thousands of Central American migrants to wait in dangerous cities in northern Mexico while their immigration cases are handled by U.S. courts.

At a hearing on Wednesday, the family's lawyer, Linda Rivas of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, asked that they be removed from MPP because of Sofi's heart condition. The couple has two other children, a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old son.

Sofi's chest bears the scar of an earlier surgery. Rivas presented evidence from a Mexican health clinic that the 3-year-old girl had suffered a heart attack, a revelation that seemed to stun Immigration Judge Nathan Herbert. The judge said he didn't have the authority to remove the family from MPP but asked the Department of Homeland Security lawyer to take note of Rivas' concerns.

On Thursday, Sofi was examined by a doctor working on contract for DHS, who told Border Patrol agents the girl had a serious heart condition, Rivas said. Tania and Joseph don't remember the doctor's name.

"They spoke to me at around 3 or 3:30 p.m., and they told me: 'Sign here, because we are giving you and your children permission.' And I said, 'I came with the children's father,' and he said, 'Not him. Only you and your children.' And the doctor said it's important for the family to stay [together], and even the doctor said 'They entered as a family and they have to leave as a family.' "

The agent insisted on the separation and asked Sofi which parent she wanted to go with, Tania said.

"The doctor told me, don't let them ask her because they don't have the right to ask a minor," she said.

The doctor stayed an hour after his shift ended at 9 p.m. Thursday trying to prevent the separation, Tania said.

When the three children realized the family faced separation, they latched on to Joseph — the son around his neck and a daughter around each leg, the parents said. Joseph was taken to another cell.

"I was going to be separated from my children and my wife, and I would have to go back to Juárez on my own," Joseph said through an interpreter. "I felt devastated."

The family's fate was left unresolved Thursday night. The doctor returned Friday morning and made the case for keeping the family together to another Border Patrol agent, Tania said.

"He explained to the other officer that they all have to enter as a family. It was the morning shift officer. He replied, yes, he was going to give him [Joseph] entrance. He also said they were giving us different court dates and the doctor told him, no, that we had entered as a family and that they had to give us the same date to all," Tania said.

The family was released on Friday to an El Paso migrant shelter and spent Saturday at a small Airbnb. On Sunday they flew from El Paso to join relatives in the Midwest.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to NPR's questions about the family's treatment while in Border Patrol custody or about the decision to remove them from MPP and allow them to stay in the U.S.

DHS guidelines say that people with "known physical/mental health issues" are exempt from MPP, but the Border Patrol twice sent Sofi and her family back to Juárez — the first time in April, then again in June after El Paso Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz brought the family to a port of entry and implored that they be allowed to stay in the United States because of the child's illness.

The family fled Honduras after Tania witnessed her mother get killed. Her sister-in-law also was a witness and was later kidnapped, tortured and slain to keep her from testifying. The gang MS-13 then posted a note on the family's door telling them they had 45 minutes to leave, Tania said. That's when the family left to seek asylum in the U.S.

Rep. Veronica Escobar, an El Paso Democrat whose office assisted the family in its efforts to be removed from the MPP program, said she is asking DHS to investigate allegations that the Border Patrol planned to separate the family and asked a 3-year-old girl to pick which parent she would go with.

"It's an outrage, and it's absolutely horrifying that a toddler would be asked to choose between two parents. It was just stunning to me. It's one thing to read about it; it's another thing to actually hear a parent recounting the story firsthand in their own voice," Escobar said.

The family will pursue its asylum claim in U.S. immigration court.

"We cannot go back to Honduras," Tania said. "We hope that the children could study here because in Honduras there are no opportunities for the children to go to school, for them to grow. We are honest people. We don't want to harm anyone. We just want an opportunity."

 

[GreyhoundFan]

You couldn't make this up:

 

[fraurosena]

Thank Rufus.