• Migrants told they'll be reunited with children if they sign deportation order
    29 replies, posted
http://thehill.com/latino/393856-migrants-told-theyll-be-reunited-with-children-if-they-sign-voluntary-deportation Detained Central American migrants who have been separated from their children have been told they can reunite with them if they agree to voluntarily deportations, The Texas Tribune reported Sunday. The news outlet, citing a detained Honduran man and two immigration lawyers, reported that the migrants have been told they would be reunited with their children at an airport if they agree to sign off on deportations.  The Honduran man, who was not identified, said he gave up his asylum case and signed the paperwork in an effort to reunite with his 6-year-old daughter. He said he’s now trying to rescind his agreement and fight his case in court. An immigration advocate, Anne Chandler, Houston director of the Tahirih Justice Center, told the Tribune that she’d heard of similar cases. The two attorneys, meanwhile, expressed concerns about the validity of the offer of reunification in exchange for deportation.  A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told the news outlet that ICE was unable to look into the allegations because no identifying information was provided about the man. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fact sheet released Sunday morning about the administration's "zero tolerance" policy indicated that parents who are to be deported can request their child accompany them. "A parent who is ordered removed from the U.S. may request that his or her minor child accompany them. It should be noted that in the past many parents have elected to be removed without their children," the fact sheet states. The DHS release said the government knows where each of the more than 2,000 separated migrant children are, but did not elaborate on a timetable for when they might be reunited with their family members.
This is straight-up taking children hostage. Not even an exaggeration, this is basically a large scale hostage situation, what the actual fuck?
He would be harmless if elected they said, fuck off. Maybe it's time to do something about this basket of deplorables who keep fucking up shit for the sane people, and force Republicans and bible-bashers to learn that maybe exceptionalism and religion in government only causes grief for everybody in the end.
Can we just take this moment to realize that if any other fucking country on this planet decided to hold children hostage in order to force illegal immigrants to sign legal documents that there's be a fucking humanitarian crisis? Second amendment people, what, if not this, counts as a state tyranny?
I imagine when it affects US Citizens and not before. Which is a truly sad statement.
No, no, it's different. It's not state tyranny if it's against brown people.
The 2nd amendment people would fight for Trump before they'd fight against him.
Unless Trump turns America into Little-China turning on American citizens no one is taking up arms against him. We'd be the nation of nucking futs citizens whipping out our guns against our government the instant someone trying to immigrate is "oppressed" because of their shitty policies. I'm not saying we should do nothing about these people trying to find new life in America, I'm saying practicing our 2nd amendment rights over illegal immigration is extreme.
Due process and equal treatment under law are parts of your constitution are they not? You're saying if the Government does this to American citizens then people maybe would take up arms. So then, if I'm understanding you right, you're saying that the US constitution has some distinction between illegal aliens and citizens, since doing this to illegal immigrants is not state tyranny, but doing this to citizens would be. Does this apply? Pyler v Doe "Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government."
I think you're misunderstanding. It isn't that presently those people are afforded the same rights as citizens, or that such language is not enshrined in the Constitution itself, but rather that people believe that it doesn't apply to them - and so it doesn't - and so they'll allow policies which violate those amendments. There is no distinction here - but there's being made one regardless because those people 'don't like the people the Constitution is trying to protect' and so they're refusing to protect them against the Constitution being violated. In effect, the Constitution is saying one thing, and those people are saying 'but those are rights afforded to citizens' because they don't want them to have the same rights. Therefore, by that logic, until their own rights are abridged or subverted, they will refuse to see it as a violation of the Constitution because they refuse to see the people the Constitution is calling out as protected as unprotected because they don't want them to be allowed in the country and are willing to let their rights be violated to ensure that they don't.
Well fuck me I didn't think of that in consideration of additions to the 14th amendment. Never knew about it until now.
Yeah no I understand completely. I was just trying to phrase the point in as clear a way as possible. I mean personally I think the whole "second amendment is a way for a population to rise up against a tyrannical government" point is complete nonsense in general, so the "what would qualify as tyrannical" question was semi-rhetorical to begin with.
I don't think it's nonsense as I do believe there are those who would rise up and that could lead to some changes. However, it hinges on a population that wants to rise up against a tyrannical government - and here it is, poking its head above the water, and I do not hear the sounds of guns being slung and bullets being loaded into magazines. The bar that these people are waiting for comes when the nation is already in flames, it seems, where it will be already too late for their arms to do any good in saving the Republic if they're unwilling to act under these circumstances.
It's possible that I'm wrong. To an extent I hope I'm wrong, but historical precedent doesn't seem to apply. I listened to a video by Three Arrows on Youtube, a historical channel that attempts to overturn many hardcore alt-right talking points. Specifically this video, starting at 6:55: The entire video is pretty eye-opening to how guns play into politics, but from that timestamp forward he goes through the timeline, event by event, and asks when you would pick up arms against the government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfHXJRqq-qo&feature=youtu.be&t=415
It is absolutely terrible and draconian but if you’re implying what I think you are then just stop. Nobody is going to throw away their livelihoods and go to war over something which doesn’t have an adverse effect on their everyday lives, especially when people are still able to speak out and challenge this through legal means.
this is the man who's standing campaign pledge was to round up and deport every single mexican immigrant, all 25 million of them. how we don't have the military going door to door yet is beyond me given how feckless republicans are
Luckily their racism is slightly slowed down by their incompetence to get shit done
Hmm.. That's an interesting way of dealing with this situation. As it's basically like the passport, we'll give your passport back if you return home. Edit: Although it still doesn't solve the problem, As you'll always have children that are parentless living in the US but their parents not in the US. As that's how it's been happening for years with ancor children their parents are deported then whomever is there legally is looking after the children. I do wonder why people choose to illegally migrate rather than legally as your chances of becoming a citzen are far higher if it's done legally.
Because legally getting a citizenship in the US is one of the longest and most scrutinized + most difficult such processes in the world.
Wouldn't it be considerbly more pratical to then widen your search?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
I doubt many of them would be angry if the U.S. started deporting (or 'deporting') liberal and non-white U.S. citizens.
Blackmailing people and using their children as leverage This is some straight up movie villain shit that before this year I wouldn't have thought possible in the western world. In 2015 a co-worker of mine said that if Trump was elected, it would lead to civil war. I thought it was ridiculous back then, but if America keeps raising the bar on evil I could imagine it happening
I’m sorry but do you have a degree in psychology or something? If so, I think you should ask for a refund ASAP because you clearly know fuck all about people other than making piss poor attempts at comparing us to stereotypes which you’re seeing in the media. To think you people have the audacity to paint second amendment supporters as a bunch of sociopaths and Rambo wannabes who fantasize about violence, yet in the same breath ask “why aren’t the second amendment people ‘doing something about it’?!” Whenever the current administration does something illegal. This right here is the reason why people don’t support you even if you are morally in the right on this specific topic of immigration. You people can’t function or form a cohesive message without making someone out to be the bad guy, often at the expense of gun owners or some conservative leaning part of the population which have nothing to do with implementing some policies. People have had enough of the bullshit character assassination and misrepresentation tactics from goodie two shoes know it alls like you. It’s like your side WANTS people to be the literal boogie man you make them out to be, just so you don’t have to deal with any of your own shortcomings or personal insecurities. It’s easier to just spout a bunch of self righteous bullshit and feel morally superior when politicians and the media tell you what to believe in so you don’t have to critically look at the validity of anything. You should have just made your point and left it at thinking it would be too late to do much by the time an insurrection would happen, without resorting to blatant mischaracterization. But since you decided to make things personal, don’t be surprised when we tell you to go pound sand when asking for support from us “Cowboys”.
I don't think you understand what real Tyranny is or what a real fascist is. You're talking about a civil war without really knowing what the cost will be. Just because an action is illegal, or morally wrong/questionable, does not mean you live in a fascist state. The fact you can on your own free will write about whatever opinion you have, read whatever book you want, eat what you want, have complete autonomy for yourself, you can go and protest, you can write your representatives, and disagree with your gov't without being crushed. Just because laws are not changing or specific things are not going the way you want them at the pace you want them to be does not mean we live in tyranny. We have a lot of fucked up situations going on, some of them new and others are old situations which been going on for decades. However, we are slowly but surely making progress and the times we live in will come to pass and hopefully the newer and younger crowd that enters politics can help move out country forward some more. My point being is, it isn't because 2nd amendment people don't care, it isn't because politically moderate or conservative people don't care, a uprising in this current state is completely unnecessary and would be nothing short of an excuse to de-arm people. I find it utterly fucking moronic and ironic that democrats are the people who want to ban gun-ownership and outright control it, but the same people who ally themselves with the democrats or have liberal ideals are like "Why no one use their guns to help." It's like you guys want to bait some fucking nut jobs in to rising up, commit an act or terrorism, and get all normal functioning people's guns taken away from them. I may not agree with the administration, or the president. I may think it is right to combat illegal immigration and meanwhile state at the same time I don't believe our current methods are right. Which basically means, there needs to be some type of reform or progress made into securing our border and making the legal immigration process easier/more efficient. I may think there is a lot of fucked up shit going, i think our country is in a pretty shitty state, but it certainly not shitty enough for people to actively want to raise arms and get the support of the populace to do so. Ask yourself another brilliant question, why would any hardcore gun owner or hardcore conservative want to rise arms against the party that wants to protect their gun rights (may not be for the right reasons, but for the sake of this argument go with it)? I hate to use labels here, but democrats/liberals/progressives/etc really need to think hard about some of the policies they have been pushing for decades. Then think about why no one is going to rise up against "tyranny" with you. Because as fair as most gun owners are concerned their own rights have been constantly eroded and been under attack. Would you want to help a group of people who constantly put something you hold important under attack and attempt to assassinate your character?
I do think people who say that "guns are a defense against tyranny" are every bit as bad as the people who say "guns are for killing", both are kinda nebulous topics that people project onto guns. They're for shooting shit, that's all. But I don't see how guns or gun control has anything to do with the topic at hand so why discuss it here.
Because the ones who brought it up first in this topic are more obsessed about the 2nd amendment than I am; which I didn’t think was possible
Rather than applying to a single country. You apply to many.
ICE has responded The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has addressed reports it has been pressuring detained migrant parents separated from their children at the U.S.-Mexico border to sign a voluntary deportation form to be reunited with their young ones. The form, which has been published online by the HuffPost, is labeled as a "Separated Parent's Removal Form" and makes it clear that it has been specifically created for detained parents who are "class members" of a June 26 decision by U.S. Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California ordering the Trump administration to reunite separated families within 30 days. "Class members are entitled to be reunited with their child(ren) and may choose for their child(ren) to accompany them on their removal or may choose to be removed without their child(ren)," the form states. "Any such decision must be made affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily," it adds. In an emailed statement to Newsweek, ICE has maintained that while the form is being used, it is only being used in cases where parents are subject to a final order of removal as part of a "long-standing policy" to g ive parents who have been ordered to be deported the option of leaving their children behind in the U.S.  However, Southern Poverty Law Center attorney Gracie Willis told the HuffPost that attorneys have seen clients who are still going through the asylum process being pressured to sign the form before  receiving orders of removal.  "We're hearing that people were told [by immigration agents]: 'You don't have the option to seek asylum and be reunited with your children," Willis said. "You either have the option to be deported with your child or without your child." American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt told NBC News the ACLU has also seen cases in which "people who have passed 'credible fear' interviews and have pending asylum claims are being given this form."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.