|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:35 |
|
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).
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 02:01 |
|
http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-ff-immigration-raids-20160103-story.htmlquote: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. 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
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 02:06 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 02:08 |
|
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. Easily, he's not taking all of them and he should have done it sooner.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 02:08 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 02:11 |
|
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.?
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 02:19 |
|
joeburz posted:http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-ff-immigration-raids-20160103-story.html 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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 16:48 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 19:47 |
|
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
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 20:24 |
|
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 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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 21:34 |
|
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?
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 21:41 |
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:
If you're consiering the warrant for someone completely unrelated, how exactly does that result in the extraction of two completely different people?
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 21:43 |
|
Exclamation Marx 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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 22:06 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 22:09 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 22:12 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 22:52 |
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. 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/
|
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 22:59 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 23:02 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2016 23:05 |
|
Exclamation Marx posted:By publicly claiming to support Zelaya while secretly supporting the military coup and endorsing a sham election 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
|
# ? Jan 5, 2016 01:03 |
|
Have you considered the possibility that the United States is actually really cool and didn't do anything wrong?
|
# ? Jan 5, 2016 02:11 |
|
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 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 |
# ? Jan 5, 2016 04:49 |
|
joeburz posted:
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:
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.
|
# ? Jan 5, 2016 08:34 |
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.
|
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 08:18 |
|
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
|
# ? Jan 6, 2016 23:42 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 00:12 |
|
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 |
# ? Jan 7, 2016 01:37 |
|
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? obviously obummer should just ignore the law~
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 11:05 |
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? 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.
|
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:29 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:33 |
|
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 not doing enough to change those laws.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:41 |
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 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.
|
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 15:47 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 16:30 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 22:15 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 23:14 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2016 23:32 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2016 00:05 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2016 00:33 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:35 |
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.
|
|
# ? May 13, 2016 07:56 |