- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Moving my post from USPOL to here:
I'm a little concerned, but it could be understandable. The whole no more border ride-alongs is fine, IMO. Trump didn't care about COVID, so I'm not surprised it's changed.
As far as the rest of the media freeze out, I can understand wanting a centralized message. It would be nice to be more transparent about the child detention centers, but it's the early days so I can see them wanting as few distractions as possible. Hopefully it doesn't continue on like that.
FWIW, here's the official response for those who didn't read the full article:
They probably shouldn’t be given time to develop a centralized message, given the conditions as they are right now.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 19:36
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2024 06:12
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Why would a democratic congressman side with Veritas? Can anyone here explain why, especially for Cuellar specifically?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 02:08
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Most people around here were perfectly fine with calling them concentration camps up until 12:00 PM EST on January 20, 2021.
Just because the administration changed doesn’t make them any less than what they are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 22:04
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
This is a canned argument worthy of a Facebook Minions Meme. People were more willing to call them concentration camps under Trump for a really good reason: he was using them to concentrate an ethnic minority for the explicit purpose of hurting them, killing them, and thereby instilling them with terror to try and prevent them from wanting to enter this country. This was his stated purpose, and he was proud to say so.
If you really see no difference in the situation with Biden in charge, there's no point in discussing the issue.
I mean after those photos came out I just don’t see a difference right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 00:22
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
With all due respect, you asked me why I thought they aren't concentration camps, I provided a citation in the form of an encyclopedic resource that explains very clearly and relatively concisely the actual distinction between a concentration camp and other types of camps such as refugee centers. Posting a definition of a term is not an "appeal to authority." Terms don't suddenly change their meaning based on people's opinions.
I'm gonna turn this back on you, and politely suggest that if anyone else wants to engage in this debate, maybe they should provide counter-citations and we can discuss those. That is, after all, what this subforum has traditionally been about.
If they were concentration camps under Trump they’re concentration camps now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 13:47
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
This post is absolutely ridiculous.
No, I’d say it’s on point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 14:44
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
You and others are just looking to force others to deal with constant toxic aggro posting. I certainly didn’t do a single thing in that multi paragraph temper tantrum and the fact you didn’t quote anyone else leaves me to believe that no one else did either.
The aggro poo poo has to stop. The constant screaming has to stop. The bullying has to stop. It’s toxic as gently caress and the rest of us don’t have to put up with it.
Nobody is loving bullying you Jesus Christ.
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 15:26
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
It's unclear to me how much cause has to be shown to yank a conditional offer of federal employment. Iirc immigration judges (despite the name) are a perfectly normal justice department employee, subject to all the usual federal employment procedures and protections.
My takeaway from the clickbaity article in a moderately clickbaity publication, that goes into absolutely no detail on whether Garland could feasibly pull the offers without getting sued is that it's mostly a nothingburger but Biden needs to get right on appointing actual good immigration judges.
also
totally right, jeff sessions did a whole lot more than appoint judges he hoped would be bad, he also completely tied their hands as far as offering mercy. garland needs to get right on undoing that
and indeed,
And I’m sure they’ll only do good things in their jobs, being people Trump wanted there and all.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 01:44
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
I don't find that post bad faith. We go in circles every few weeks. People claim Biden has done nearly nothing, and/or that his executive actions are "worthless", and others ask "what can he do instead" and the inevitable response is "just close the camps and release the refugees into cities!!!!" and then others point out how horrifically stupid of an idea that is, and they are accused of being concentration camp lovers.
Look, let's just get real: there's a contingent of people who come running into this thread with every negative immigration story that is published, and they post with the subtext of "hah look! another Biden fuckup!!! we told ya he was bad  ".
There's literally nothing Biden can do, and no well-sourced argument the rest of us can mount, to make these posters go "wow okay, sorry, I was wrong, I gotta hand it to Joe, he is handling it well." People criticizing Biden in this thread 100% don't care about the incredible complexities of our immigration system, and don't care that Biden himself cannot singlehandedly fix its plethora of problems, and won't even acknowledge the significant amount of good he has done that has benefited hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
To them, immigration is just another cudgel with which to smack him and anyone who dares point out he's doing a decent job, even if those people follow that up with "but he needs to do a lot better!"
Do you disagree? Then respond to the three links I posted above, and point by point explain why each of the executive actions and policy changes they describe is actually worthless. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Bringing back “wave a magic wand” seems incredibly bad faith to me.
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 13:45
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
You're the one positing that the solution exists, so asking you to support that position by say... telling us what it is.... Is hardly bad faith.
Neither is the fact people will tear it down if it's ridiculous. I don't know what you think "bad faith" means, but it's not "argument I have no answer for".
People have offered solutions though.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 14:14
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Trick question because it assumes that "class analysis" is a useful framework that can predict or explain most people's actions with regards to politics, which is laughable.
Yeah, you're going to need to go into more detail here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2021 17:42
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
in the voting rights thread you make the concession (that you must) that destroys your argument: people do not act in accordance with their class interests. the working class clearly doesn't.
given that, we have falsified the "people act purely in accordance with their class interests" which is a simple change to the libertarian Rational Actor theorem of behavior. now, you sort of try to rescue it by claiming that only the wealthy act in their class interests - and nothing but. but that has a problem: what makes those wealthy people so much clearer-eyed, superior, and able to act exclusively in their class interests like a Rational Actor libertarian, but who someone has taught the value of cooperation, when poor people can't manage it? why are we assuming the rich are a class above, superior to the poor? instead of, say, just the same as any other dumb person, but with more money?
Okay yeah let's just throw out evidence from across human history.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2021 17:48
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
You don’t need to worry about the “run people down on horseback budget” - they’re not going to be allowed to use horses anymore!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2021 15:26
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
https://www.businessinsider.com/title-42-judge-orders-biden-administration-to-stop-expelling-families-2021-9
The Biden-Harris administration is fighting to retain the ability to deny sanctuary and to rapidly remove migrants under the guise of Covid control, aka Title 42.
"Title 42: Judge orders Biden administration to stop expelling families that cross the border to seek asylum
A US federal judge on Thursday gave the federal government two weeks to stop summarily expelling families with children who cross the border to seek asylum — a demand that the Biden administration is appealing."
The cruelty is the point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2021 14:35
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Blatantly violating the law on seeking asylum, but Republicans initiate and Democrats codify.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2021 17:26
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
So he is doing exactly what the op said, good to know.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2021 15:43
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
It’s fascist poo poo even if a court is telling you to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2021 16:08
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
If you wanna argue that Biden should say "gently caress the courts" and simply defy any authority that prevents him from changing immigration rules - something even Trump the so-called fascist didn't dare to do - then loving come out and say it straight-up. Don't just needle people with one-liners like this, have the guts to actually state and explain your opinion.
Alright, he should tell them to go pound sound over them trying to force fascist poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2021 16:28
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Considering the way experts have been treated in D&D lately, don't be surprised if your questions don't elicit responses like they used to in the past.
What experts?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 19:20
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
So we're not going to force migrants to remain in another country?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 05:48
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/story/2022-01-08/remain-in-mexico-returns-to-tijuana
IMMIGRATION
U.S. failure to follow Remain in Mexico rules show program hasn’t changed as promised
Two men from Colombia who did not want to be identified are the first to be returned to Tijuana under the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP. They will have to return to the border for their first immigration court hearings next month.(Alejandro Tamayo/The San Diego Union-Tribune)
The first two people who were returned to Tijuana under the program this week discussed their experience
BY KATE MORRISSEY
JAN. 8, 2022 5 AM PT
Despite the Biden administration’s assurances that it has made changes to the “Remain in Mexico” program to address humanitarian and due-process concerns, the experiences of the first two people returned to Tijuana under the restart included many of the issues that plagued the program under the Trump administration.
In what is perhaps a small, telling window into how the implementation is going, the Spanish word for “migrant” was misspelled in the title of one of the documents of instructions that the men were given.
Beyond this and other paperwork errors, officials have already violated rules that were meant to make the program less harmful in its second iteration.
Though Biden administration officials promised access to counsel, the two Colombian men were not allowed to speak with attorneys while in U.S. custody. Officials also failed to vaccinate one of the men for COVID-19. Confused and terrified, the two men found themselves back in Tijuana with the extra stigma of being the first returnees.
“We’re the two from Colombia,” one of the men said in Spanish. “Everyone knows we’re them. We already have problems.”
The Union-Tribune is not publicly identifying the men or their location because of their fear that the people they fled will come looking for them. The men are also concerned that, as the first two people returned to Tijuana, they’ve been made especially vulnerable as targets.
Known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols or MPP, the program requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their immigration court cases proceed in the U.S. It came under heavy criticism when it was first implemented under the Trump administration because of the danger in which it placed already vulnerable migrants. Many were assaulted, kidnapped or worse, sometimes as they left a port of entry or attempted to return to one for a court hearing.
MPP also made finding attorneys — who are instrumental in navigating the complexities of proving an asylum case — especially difficult for those enrolled.
Mexican National Guard vehicles parked at the Chaparral Plaza in Tijuana
Mexican Guardia Nacional vehicles parked at the Chaparral Plaza in Tijuana.(Alejandro Tamayo/The San Diego Union-Tribune)
President Joe Biden campaigned on ending the program and did so in his first year in office. But the states of Texas and Missouri challenged the way the program was ended in federal court, and a judge sided with the states, ordering the program’s return.
As of Friday, 237 people have been returned to Mexico under the restart, mostly in El Paso, Texas, where the program began in December, according to the U.N. migration agency. In Tijuana, 11 have been sent back. The Tijuana returns include two women, according to Alex Mensing of Innovation Law Lab.
Though the Biden administration maintains that it is only bringing the program back because it has to, critics have pointed to an expansion of nationalities eligible for the program as a sign that the administration is using the judge’s order as an excuse to further the United States’ longstanding agenda of deterring asylum seekers rather than working to create a humane asylum system as promised during the campaign.
Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor Customs and Border Protection responded to a request for comment about the issues identified by the two men.
The two men, who have been friends since childhood, said that they hadn’t planned to leave Colombia but fled late last year because their lives were suddenly in danger. They did not want to speak publicly about the details of what happened to them because they were afraid they would be identified or that their asylum cases would be affected.
According to a U.S. State Department report, human rights concerns in Colombia include unlawful and arbitrary killings as well as reports of torture and arbitrary detention by both government and criminal forces. Border Patrol agents caught more than 3,300 Colombians crossing into the United States in November, the most recent month with CBP data available. That’s roughly 2 percent of the people apprehended that month.
The end-of-year holidays are an important time to be with family, one man said, and he wouldn’t have chosen to leave the country at that time without being forced.
They traveled by plane, flying to several Mexican cities before arriving in Tijuana. The journey took only a couple of weeks. While in Mexico, they paid to stay in a hotel where they felt safer, and they did not go out.
“That’s what worries us,” one man said. “We’re really afraid to be in Mexico. There’s no difference between Mexico and Colombia.”
Between the flights and hotel rooms, they spent all of the money that they had. In doing so, they avoided many of the harms that many asylum seekers risk on the journey by foot and bus to the U.S. border. They believed that once they reached U.S. soil, they would be safe, so the temporary expense seemed worth it.
They planned to live with the wife of one of the men, who is a green-card holder in the U.S. She had already been planning to sponsor her husband’s green card in the coming years, but because of the urgency of the situation he found himself in, those plans changed.
When they were apprehended by Border Patrol the day before New Year’s Eve, they did not know that the Remain in Mexico program was restarting.
An official with El Instituto Nacional de Migración walks with others out of El Chaparral port of entry into Tijuana.(Ana Ramirez/The San Diego Union-Tribune)
Agents took them to a station and placed them in a cell packed with dozens of other men. There were only six bunk beds, the men said, so they slept on the floor, sandwiched among all of the people in custody. Because the lights were always on in the cell, they struggled to keep track of time.
Though they do not speak much English, they realized that agents were speaking badly about them, they said. They recognized words like “stupid” and phrases like “go back to your country.”
The experience, one man said, amounted to psychological abuse.
They were not given an opportunity to bathe or shower while they were in custody, they said, though they were there for nearly a week.
According to the documents they were given, they signed documents related to MPP on Monday, after they’d already been in the cell for several days. The men said they didn’t know what they were signing, that many of the documents were in English and even for the documents in Spanish, they were not given time to read them before signing.
After they’d been selected for MPP, an agent asked if they were afraid to go back to Mexico. The men said another agent tried to keep that official from asking the question, which is now a required question under the new rules for the program before someone can be returned.
“He said we would have to spend more time in those conditions,” one man recalled.
They told the agent that they were terrified.
The new rules say that if someone expresses fear of return to Mexico, they should have 24 hours to get in touch with an attorney before they speak with an asylum officer. Though the men waited the required time period before that interview, they were not allowed to make any calls or otherwise access legal counsel, they said.
The man whose wife is in the United States said that he asked to be able to call her because she could get an attorney for him, but officials denied that request.
Documents from the asylum officer’s interview corroborate the men’s claims that they didn’t have access to attorneys and that they were forced to sign paperwork that they did not understand.
They said an agent told them that no matter what happened, they would be sent back to Mexico. So, when the asylum officer asked if they wanted to wait longer in custody in order to access attorneys, the men waived that right, not wanting to spend more time in the crowded cell with their fate already decided.
On their own, the men were not able to explain their fears in a way that met the legal requirement to get out of the program.
The document indicating the questions asked and the asylum officer’s summary of the responses received seemed to indicate that though the men are extremely fearful that their persecutors will find them in Mexico, because they were able to survive in hiding in Mexico for the two weeks that they were there, they did not qualify for exemptions to the program. They told the asylum officer they are now out of money and unable to pay for a hotel.
“We told them that we would not go out because we are scared, but how can we not go out for six months?” one man said.
Agents also made errors in the men’s documentation — a common issue in the first iteration of MPP.
The men were initially scheduled for court hearings months in the future — which likely would have pushed their cases well past the six-month limit imposed by Mexico in this iteration of MPP. When they told the asylum officer this, their hearings were rescheduled for February. However, one of the men’s English-language documents still indicates that his court hearing is in May though the Spanish-language version of the document says February.
Migrants and asylum seekers go about their lives in a migrant camp near the port of entry at Tijuana's Chaparral plaza
Hundreds of migrants go about their lives in a camp near the port of entry at Tijuana’s Chaparral plaza. Many are waiting to be able to request asylum in the United States.(Ana Ramirez/The San Diego Union-Tribune)
Additionally, pages of the men’s documents with their personal information were mixed up. Each man had the first page of the other’s court notice.
Those court notices do not indicate an address where the immigration court can contact the men. That was a major issue in the program’s first iteration because, if hearing dates change, the court cannot inform the people expected to show up, and people who don’t show up to immigration court can be ordered deported in their absence.
The men said they were not asked detailed questions about their medical history — the new rules also delineate medical reasons that people should be exempted from the program. They did not have any documentation indicating that officials had verified that they do not have any of those conditions. Human rights observers in Texas have published images of such documents given to returnees at the Texas border, where the program began again late last year.
Before they were returned to Mexico, officials asked the men whether they had received COVID-19 vaccines. Part of the agreement with Mexico requires the United States to vaccinate asylum seekers prior to returning them.
One man was already fully vaccinated. The other had had one dose and needed his second. He said he wanted to get it, but before officials could administer it, the transport came to get them and took them to the border.
Shortly before they were returned, one man recalled, an official offered him a cookie. The moment felt absurd after all that he had experienced in custody.
At the border, they were tested for COVID-19 by staff from the U.N. migration agency and then transported, with a Mexican National Guard escort, to a shelter.
They don’t know if they should stay there or try to find somewhere else to be. After more and more reporters showed up on Thursday looking for them, they began to feel as though too many people already knew where they were.
They received documents from Mexico that would allow them to work while they wait, but the men said that won’t be helpful.
“We can’t go out,” one man said.
The Republicans act, and Democrats codify.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2022 17:14
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
It is basically impossible to see any difference between the immigration and border policies of Trump and Biden at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2022 15:18
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
When you see white Ukrainians being given preferential treatment at the border it really puts into perspective who is allowed to be considered a victim and who isn’t.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2022 16:29
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
What perspective does it put it in?
That we ignore the people victimized by our own imperial aggression.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2022 01:47
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Predominantly people from Central and South America and the Caribbean, but not universally (look to how we’ve handled refugees from Afghanistan after the pull out).
I do think we should be helping Ukrainian refugees considering (at the very least) what the US did over the last thirty years to make this war happen, but there is absolutely a racial double standard on how we are approaching this, just as there always has been when it comes to immigration:
Nucleic Acids fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Apr 22, 2022
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2022 14:12
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
What the US did to make the war happen?
Y'know, Russia could have just not invaded Ukraine. I mean, it's really easy not to invade a country.
NATO expansion east of Germany and everything we did to Russia in the 90s that directly enabled Putin’s rise to power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 04:51
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
Considering what Russia is doing in Ukraine, joining NATO is the smartest thing a country that shares a border with Russia could do.
But if the United States is responsible for the Ukrainian refugee crisis, why shouldn't it provide refuge for Ukrainians fleeing the war?
We should, we just are not providing for the refugees who are the prodcuts of maintaining our current imperial state.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 05:57
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2024 06:12
|
|
- Nucleic Acids
- Apr 10, 2007
-
|
I am not sure how I can.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 06:27
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 19:36
