Questions for Biden supporters

That's all well and good (I guess), but it's 12 years old, and even if it was 100% accurate the day it was written and remains so to this day, it's not relevant to our discussion. We're not talking about CPS (or DCFS, or whatever you or your State wants to call them) making exaggerated or bogus charges, we're talking DHS (and specifically, the Border Patrol) making mostly accurate charges about a WHOLE other issue.

Which is a long winded way of saying it's irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion.

 

There is nothing I suggested or implied that remotely reflects the above nonsense.

It was explicitly relevant to the discussion I was having with another poster. I wasn't having any discussion with you so your claim is not relevant, period.

CPS exists and will exist no matter who's President and their crimes against humanity, which are forever ongoing, have no expiration date. I haven't seen any hint from any President or wannabe President that suggests any agenda to reform CPS or the complicit family courts so they actually perform the job they're meant to perform without committing human rights violations. The number of children who have been kidnapped, abused and/or murdered because of CPS is staggering.

 

Apparently from process of elimination the only viable recourse you and Golem leave is open borders or holding the Adults and children together.. Wonder how that will pan out taking in to fact that a certain number of these adults are not the parents, in fact are child abductors, gang members and sex offenders..

Sound like a plan, sadly releasing them or caging them together has no real upside to it

 

Then what exactly DO you suggest we do with children whose parents have been jailed? If you're saying not to send them to jail with their parents, which is a position I wholeheartedly agree with, and assuming that we're not just gonna put them out on the streets, then what SHOULD we do, and how would your plan differ from what's happening now?

CPS and Family Courts are the sole purview of the States. As such, POTUS doesn't have much, if any power to do anything about it, except insofar as he/she has a bully pulpit that people, including important ones, might actually pay attention to. OTOH, if you or I start publicly bitching about CPS issues, chances are nobody is going to care, much less give our thoughts any actual consideration, or even pay the slightest bit of attention, because OUR bully pulpit has no juice.

But let's return back to the more important issue/question, which is what would you do regarding children of in-custody parents that differs from how things are done now?

 

I am not interested in your phony "process of elimination". I don't speak for anyone else but myself and my posts stand as written and intended. This government, as directed by Trump, has engaged in human rights atrocities, including torture, by his agenda of separating children from their parents absent due process in violation of the Constitution, federal law and international treaties. No amount of dancing from you changes that.

That is incorrect on multiple levels. First, although CPS is under the control and policy of individual states, they receive federal funding under Title IV of the Social Security Act and are quite reliant on that funding. Second, the President wields enormous power to make all sorts of things happen if he wants to. It doesn't always work because he does need help from Congress depending on what he wants to get done. By doing nothing however, he would leave Congress to take the initiative. CPS is not something he doesn't have the capacity to try to reform.

Abide by the Constitution, you know, the Supreme Law of the Land. And more specifically, abide by what our founding fathers died for, among other things, the protection of the individual basic right of due process. Not to mention, abide by basic human rights. That is completely different than (the exact opposite of) what is being done now.

 

Blah, blah, blah. You DIDN'T ANSWER THE FARGIN' QUESTION.

Given the following facts:
1- An adult and/or adult couple have been arrested and put in jail pending their hearings and resolution of their case.
2- These same adults claim that a child in their party is their biological child, and nobody objects or calls that claim into question.
3- Presuming (reasonably) that these children are neither going to be sent to jail with their alleged parents, OR put out on the streets to fend for themselves.

Then the obvious question, which I have asked you 4 or 5 times by now, and which you have refused to answer by giving colorful but irrelevant answers about the Constitution and human rights IS:

WHAT, then, do the authorities do with the children? Specifically. And as a follow up, how would YOUR plan be different than the present reality?

Please answer DIRECTLY with what you would do if you woke up tomorrow and found that you had been elected King, and had the power to do whatever you wanted with the children in question, and nobody could question or contradict your orders.

 

Of course I did, you just don't like my answer and you'd rather I play along with your games. It's pretty simple, abide by the Constitution (these government servants never do) as required by the Oath of Office. I know the Constitution is irrelevant to you, that's why you support and defend a Nazi infesting our pretend government and his fascist agenda. If you actually supported and defended the Constitution, none of my answers would be irrelevant to you.

"We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law." - Edward R. Morrow

People who seek asylum should not immediately be incarcerated by accusation that they committed or may have committed a crime by entering this country and have their children torn from them and tossed in concentration camps. They have and deserve the same due process protections as any human being, guaranteed by the US Constitution, American or not.

If you want to know what I would do. I would set up a committee stocked with appropriate experts who would be tasked with coming up with a valid, constitutionally compliant plan as to how to properly deal with all those who seek asylum in the US. I am not such an expert but I do know more than enough to understand that this is a Nazi agenda that has no place in a free Constitutional Republic and should be condemned by anyone with any integrity.

If this is all irrelevant to you, ask me if I care.

 

Great post, prob wasted on the Cult.

I'm hoping a lot of people got to jail for the torture of those kids.

 

Yes I'm quite sure they have zero understanding and empathy toward human rights. I did not really post it for them, I posted it in defense of human rights.

 

LMAO, then what's your plan to deal with illegal immigration

 

And you'd have the same bullshit now as you did under Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump. As a nation we can't simply allow everyone to enter because they seek asylum.. No other country does it LMAO..

 

Well easily said huh Why not make their homeland safer for them by toppling their abusive government.. Help them achieve what they clearly want from us and this country..

 

I never said I had one. Re-read what you quoted from your next response for comprehension.

Obviously untrue, none of the above Presidents implemented anything resembling what I suggested.That's why nothing ever changes.

Are you laughing at yourself? You made the above claim, not I. There's a reason for due process, you apparently have no clue what it is.

Quite when it's 100% true.

And that I take it is your plan, Overthrow governments and massacre innocent people in the process, I guess in your world it's more humane than torturing children?

 

Both international law and our own laws beg to differ.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. Whether somebody qualifies for asylum or not is up to immigration judges. But everybody has a right to apply. Which was my point.

On the bright side, even though it took an effort, I finally got you to do research. That's a good thing. Even though it was misguided, it's progress. Next time I hope you prefer research over mindlessly repeating what you hear on your wingnut media before posting. Not after.

 

Look, you will NEVER find someone who is more of a Constitutionalist than me. I'm not about to claim I have it memorized, or that I know everything there is to know, but I know a LOT more than your average Joe Sixpack. Back when I could walk, I almost ALWAYS had a pocket copy of the document with me, and I swore an Oath to Uncle Sam that included a blank check up to and including laying down my life to protect Her. Even though I could hardly do anything now due to my physical incapacities, as far as I'm concerned, that Oath is still in effect.

This is why I'm such a big fan of Trump's SCOTUS nominees, because they at least appear to be originalists and contextualists. Which means they will rule on what the Constitution and applicable Laws actually SAY about whatever cases come before them, not what they would like it to say, or what their personal political biases WANT it to say. We actually need NINE of those on the Supreme Court, to my way of thinking that is the single MOST important qualification.

But, the Constitution doesn't have much to say about immigration, except to say that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government. But it doesn't micromanage the HOW, so your suggestion that arresting people who have blatantly violated our existing Federal Law is Unconstitutional is codswallop because the document is silent on that issue. We are CERTAINLY entitled to arrest them, regardless of their bullshit "But, but, ASYLUM!!!" claims that even the people making the claims know (or should know) are just that... Bullshit. And even IF they are given a hearing (which sadly, too many of them are), they will not be successful. And the fact that virtually all asylum claims come AFTER an arrest, it's a safe bet that most of the arrestees KNOW their claim is bogus, otherwise they would have done it right instead of playing the asylum.

Emphasis mine.

What you have just said is nothing but your personal opinion. There is no Constitutional provision, nor Federal Law that would prevent that from happening. You may not want them to be incarcerated, you may not like the fact that they are being, and that's certainly your right to hold that opinion, but it is only that. One person's opinion.

The accusation of having committed a crime, which of course comes with a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, frequently does in fact come with incarceration. Whether or not bond/bail is granted is usually handled on a case by case basis, but the abject and complete failure of "catch and release" has led to most, if not virtually all persons accused of blowing our borders into being held in custody until their cases are resolved. Now, you might say that for such a "minor" crime that seems a little extreme, but experience has taught us that NOT incarcerating them leads to an overwhelming majority (we're talking 95%+) of those charged not showing up for their hearings, and just disappearing into some unknown corner of the country, frequently into cities and/or counties which not only ignore the existing laws themselves (by local policy), but ACTIVELY do everything they can to prevent the feds from enforcing the laws themselves, which is itself legally questionable.

And I feel the need to point out that not only are they existing laws, they are LONG TERM existing laws that have not changed substantially since at LEAST when I was in high school (which was more years ago than I care to admit), and quite possibly longer than that.

Great, an actual idea. An absolutely HORRIBLE idea, and one that will never fly, but at least we're making progress understanding how you want to actually handle things.

You see, enforcing immigration laws and protecting our borders is not by any means a "Nazi agenda". It is in fact the responsibility and DUTY of the government to enforce the Laws that have been put into place by our Congress, usually (but not necessarily always as the Congress has the power to override a veto) with the consent of whomever was POTUS when those Laws were passed. But as I already pointed out, Trump was not even POTUS when most of these Laws were passed, so to blame him personally for what the Law already said when he was inaugurated is absolutely disingenuous.

So we're basically back to the original question. Operating on the assumption that these adults that are arrested (which are too few, as WAY too many get through the dragnet successfully) WILL be incarcerated, and held in incarceration until their cases are resolved, what, then, is to be done with their alleged children? (I say "alleged" because far too frequently that turns out to not even be true, but that doesn't really change the question.)

We've already established that sending them to jail with their "parents" is not going to happen, nor are we going to just release them into the streets to fend for themselves, so then what? I do not see any alternatives but the way things are being handled now. "Catch and Release" was an abject failure (though I could see a potential "President Biden" (which is looking less and less likely) at least TRYING to reinstate it, though with the likely makeup of the Congress as of this moment, I don't see that happening), so it's a reasonable, but not foregone conclusion that will not be reinstated.

So, once again, the question to you is this: What should be done with the children in question, and how would that differ from how it is now?

 

There is no law (at least that I'm aware of) that makes a linguistic barrier invalidate the concept that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Great, so they have that right. But applying for asylum, even if it IS a complete joke (which everybody, including that applicant knows going into it) is not a guarantee of not being incarcerated for any alleged crime they may be guilty of committing. Which leaves the federal government on the hook for taking care of them for at least the duration of their "parents" incarceration. Which leaves us right back where we are now. The only way to change that is to reinstate "Catch and Release", which is not only a horrible idea, is unlikely even with a Biden win for reasons I explained to another poster above.

You're just flat out wrong about that. What you presume was "research" on my part is something that I've been aware of for many years. I just didn't post it previously because I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it was something that pretty much everyone (at least amongst those who partake in these online debates) was equally knowledgeable of. But it seems I may have been wrong, especially in your case.

 

The only one in this debate claiming "ignorance of the law" is you. And by God you're proving it.

The law clearly states what can and cannot be done. Torturing their children to dissuade them from even applying is not on any law. Nor would it be in the mind of any sane person.

Which is what "asylum" means. Did you think we're the only country in the world where refugees flee?

See here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/stop-it-refugees-are-not-a-problem.557708/

Look... it's not an easy job to be President. It requires somebody who is qualified to thread the needle. And that is definitely not a sociopath like Trump whose "solution" was to torture the children.

Disgraceful!

 

If you and your wife were arrested and incarcerated, your children would be held by the state, at least until a qualified and willing relative is found, in which case they would be placed in their custody, or if nobody is available or willing, they would become a "ward of the State". That is the EXACT SAME THING that is happening with children crossing the border with their alleged parents. No difference whatsoever. At first, they'd be held in a group home, and hopefully before too long a person or couple would come along who is willing to act as foster parents, where they will stay (either the group home or foster parents residence) until you and your wife's cases are settled. The only real difference is, depending on what you guys are charged with you have at least a possibility of getting bond/bail, which generally speaking border jumpers no longer do.

Other than the question of bond/bail, in both cases the children are handled identically. Nobody is being tortured, cut, beaten, burned alive, hit with baseball bats or brass knuckles, or anything else that rises to the level of "torture". But you guys have your new talking points, and people ARE very sensitive to the idea of children being tortured (and rightfully so), the only problem is that it's happening to NOBODY.

It's a completely false allegation, and one that the people spreading it KNOW is completely false, but it sells extremely well to uninformed people. Which, sadly, is most people.

But you still have not stated what you would do differently if you woke up and found yourself in charge, nor have you answered the question as to whether or not you are in favor of completely open borders. I suspect the answers are "I'd reinstate "catch and release"", and "Yes, of course I'm in favor of completely open borders", but so far you've acted as though those queries were never even made.

Annnnddddd, we're back to the asylum thing. As I've explained ad nauseum, an application does not equal a "get out of jail free" card. They can, will, and are being held without bail pending their legal proceedings, which means we go back above to the steps I explained about what happens to children when their parents are incarcerated. And it doesn't make a single bit of a difference if those parents are 15th generation American Citizens, or border jumpers.

You may be hoping that Biden will reinstate "catch and release" if he wins, but even if he does, now that GOP control of the Senate is all but a lock, he will not be successful. I'm not happy about Biden pulling off a win in MI (though it's not too late for the pundits to be wrong about that) as it paints Trump into a corner, but with the GOP controlling the Senate, that will vastly limit the amount of damage he can do, including on this topic. And assuming he even lives to see the 2024 elections, he's already said he won't run again, plus the party opposite the White House incumbent tends to pick up seats in the mid-terms, so he may not be the complete disaster he would have been if the asses won everything.

Oh, and I read part of your other thread. Just another bitchfest that we're not letting in enough illiterate, mostly useless people. Why not just man up and proudly say that you want open borders, and you don't care what kind of people they might attract?

 

No they wouldn't. They would go to a family member or somebody I trust. And, BTW, you get them BACK when you're released. You're not sent out of the country without them. That's a poor excuse to justify torture.

You keep trying to debate this without reading the law. Torture is not just about hurting people physically.

Yes! This is torture. That is why the Trump administration was ordered to stop doing it. It's why they were ordered to reunite the children with their parents, which this administration has dragged their feet on. So there are over 500 children who haven't seen their parents in over two years.

Unfortunately it's impossible to have a meaningful debate on this matter if you won't even look at the laws.

That sounds very similar to some racist remarks I've heard. The large majority of the so-called "illegal immigrants" have grown to become very productive citizens. They are hard working individuals. They pay taxes and Social Security (despite the fact that most never enjoy the benefits). And violent crime rates is far lower than that of the general population.

Anybody on this forum who knows me knows that I would have no problem saying that I was for open borders, if I were for open borders. Why would I have to "man-up"? (Very chauvinistic terminology, BTW) But I would trade all illegal immigrants currently in the system for the worthless racists and white supremacists in our country any day. I am for granting asylum to those who are persecuted in their own country. I am for granting a path to citizenship to DACA recipients. As a matter of fact, I'm in favor of a path to residence and ultimately citizenship to any illegal alien who has not committed any crime while in this country, who has a job, is willing to pay taxes, a fine, keep a clean criminal record and report at least once a year for a review that they are complying with the above during a span of 10 years.

I am not in favor of open borders. But you say that as if being for open borders were the same as being in favor of torture. It's not. I simply disagree with any such policy. I don't even know anybody who is in favor of open borders. And the only one in favor of torture is Trump and his gang. But I would gladly trade all these useless gun-carrying racists that have come out of the closet in the last four years for as many illegal aliens.

 

Yet you keep defending basic Bill of Rights and other constitutional violations. Just saying the above doesn't make it true or you simply don't understand the Constitution.

Then you should actually study what you claim you swore an Oath to. Additionally the Oath you claim you swore is NOT to "Uncle Sam", it's to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. So it seems to me you have no clue what you claim you took the Oath for.

I studied the Constitution, civil rights laws and cases and read many opinion articles written by constitutional scholars over the last couple of decades. I also have personally and successfully litigated a civil rights violation case and an intellectual property case and written multiple legal briefs. I know enough to be dangerous (to opposing attorneys) but I will not claim to be an expert. I'm not only not a fan of SCOTUS, I reject SCOTUS as a rogue branch of the US government (actually all 3 branches are). SCOTUS has been in violation of Article III since Marbury v Madison (1803) when it illegally seized the power to "interpret" the Constitution.

The primary responsibility and mandate of the US government by Oath of Office is to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. That supersedes all other responsibilities. No law or action can be pursued which violates the Constitution. That includes but is not limited to due process protections for everyone and protection from human rights atrocities including of course torture.

I made no such suggestion and you have no evidence that anyone who enters this country seeking asylum has violated any law, much less everyone as you falsely imply. Without granting due process protections, any summary declaration that anyone is guilty of violating any law is baseless, unconstitutional and the stuff of a banana republic. Worse, to incarcerate those who seek asylum and ripping their children from them is the hallmark of Nazism.

You spout so many blatantly false and/or unsupported claims and premises above it's breathtaking. First, you blanketly ASSume without any supporting evidence that all requests for asylum are "bullshit". You ASSume without any supporting evidence and due process protection that these people should be arrested, incarcerated and have their children ripped from them because YOU believe they've committed a crime by requesting asylum which you knee jerk claim is "bullshit". And you paint a broad picture that every single case is just as YOU decide it is.

Everything everyone (including you) posts in this forum is personal opinion, so the above is meaningless. The difference is my opinion is based on and supported by extensive study, yours is based on hyperbole and a demonstrable lack of knowledge of the Constitution and human rights doctrine.

There are multiple constitutional provisions that prevent wholesale arrests, incarceration, torture and other human rights violations. You just have no clue what they are or don't understand these or refuse to acknowledge them. Most are found in the Bill of Rights and Article VI.

So you believe that people should be incarcerated merely by accusation of having committed a crime then? That's the mindset of the typical Nazi or authoritarian.

Requesting asylum is not a crime and it is unconstitutional so the above is irrelevant.

The existing and primary law is the Constitution and no legislated "law" is valid if it isn't constitutionally compliant.

So in your world establishing an investigatory committee stocked with experts tasked with formulating a sensible constitutionally compliant plan is a "horrible idea"? I agree it will never fly because it's the most sensible method to deal with just about any issue under the sun.

Correct, it isn't. The manner in which it's done is a Nazi agenda.

Correct and the Supreme Law of the Land that state actors are tasked with enforcing is the Constitution. That also means all unconstitutional laws and acts must be rejected by mandate.

The mandate of the President is to enforce the Constitution not to incarcerate innocent people (and everyone is innocent unless and until proven guilty by a valid court of law) and rip their children from them absent all due process protection.

I operate under the assumption that everyone is innocent unless and until proven guilty by a valid court of law. And that means granting every single human being due process and all other protections guaranteed and mandated by the Constitution.

The exact opposite of what is currently being done, they have committed no crime for which they deserve to be tortured (not that torture is the remedy for any committed crime) and neither have their parents.