Toronto Escorts

Sarah Sanders gets kicked out of restaurant

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
Not true, they would be paroled in the United States until their hearing date. The one slight problem the vast majority never showed up for their hearing, they merely disappeared into the ocean of those illegally in the U.S.A.
1. The vast majority were not charged until Trump came along. They were processed by the Border Patrol officials, loaded into a bus, and sent back where they came from. Charges were reserved for drug smugglers, human traffickers, or those who had attempted multiple border crossings.

2. Of those who were charged and released, 75% show up for their hearings...and that percentage can be increased through simple steps such as making sure immigrants have the proceedings explained to them clearly in their own language or using ankle bracelets (much cheaper and more humane than incarceration which should be reserved for those identified as dangerous criminals based on something other than the colour of their skin).

https://thinkprogress.org/most-families-show-up-for-immigration-hearings-f44fff01ac44/



The data point that destroys Trump’s argument for detaining immigrants
Trump says we need to detain immigrants because they won’t show up for court. That’s not true.


The Trump administration has regularly claimed that families seeking asylum who get released within the United States while they wait for their interviews and court dates do not show up.

“Not surprisingly, many of those who are released into the United States after their credible fear determination from DHS simply disappear and never show up at their immigration hearings,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in an October 2017 speech.

White House legislative director Marc Short told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Monday, “Eighty percent of those that are coming here illegally never show up for court and are never deported.”

And as President Trump cited different numbers in a speech on Tuesday, arguing that people “never” come back or “like 3 percent” do
— and for those who fail to report for legal proceedings, the result is either that the immigrants are “in your system” or commit murder.

The administration has used this rational as justification for its new “zero-tolerance policy” of detaining families and, until Wednesday, separating children from adults. To the Trump administration, the policy may be extreme, but it is necessary to solve the problem of asylum-seekers failing to show up for their court dates, receiving “in absentia removal orders,” and staying in the country undocumented.

The trouble with this logic is that most people do in fact show up for their court dates.

The Justice Department’s data from FY 2016 puts “in absentia” cases — immigration cases for which there are no defendants — at just 25 percent, not the 97 percent the president estimated. So just one in four immigrants failed to show up for their hearings. This was a drop from 28 percent in FY 2015.


Only 25 percent of immigration court cases were decided without defendants in FY 2016.
If someone has passed their “credible fear” screening, which means they have a credible fear of persecution or torture, and they have not been found to be a security or flight risk, they are often released on the condition they appear in court at a future date. In 2015, according to a Washington Office on Latin America analysis of the data from the Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), the overall appearance rate in 2015 for all individuals released from ICE custody was 77 percent. Many who do fail to show for their hearings do so because they missed notices sent to old addresses, or because they lack legal representation — not, as the president suggested, because they are off murdering people.

According to an analysis by the group Human Rights First using the Syracuse TRAC data through December 2017, 97 percent of mothers who had legal representation and whose cases were initiated in FY 2014 were actually in full compliance with their court hearing obligations. The same is true for 98 percent of children.

The TRAC data showed, according to Human Rights First, that 44 percent of mothers did not have legal representation, nor did 36 percent of children. Counsel is expensive, and federal funds for court-appointed attorneys are scarce. The system is byzantine and complex, and there are not many options when it comes to pro bono lawyers who can do this work.

It is hard enough to get access to legal counsel in these circumstances. It is close to impossible for families held in detention centers in remote locations, often barred from speaking with family members and social circles who could directly help them obtain the legal advice and resources they need to effectively fight for their asylum cases.

There are also systems that can ensure perfect compliance with court responsibilities. Over a year ago, the White House ended a program called the Family Case Management Program pilot system, which matched nearly 1,000 asylum-seeking families in several metropolitan areas with social workers. The program had an overall compliance rate of 99 percent.


Philip Wolgin, the managing director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, stressed that these are “people who are exercising their legal right to claim asylum.” (Editor’s Note: ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news site housed at the Center for American Progress.)

“It’s also not surprising that the administration has ended proven alternatives such as the Family Case Management Program, which cost a fraction of what it takes to incarcerate someone and work well. Instead they would rather lock up as many people as they can.”
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
18 U.S. Code § 594 - Intimidation of voters

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
 

LT56

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
1,604
1
0
You can read the same news articles I can.

"The Red Hen DC

Good morning! The Press Secretary was at the unaffiliated Red Hen in Lexington VA last night, not at this restaurant.

un·af·fil·i·at·ed (adjective) not officially attached to or connected with an organization or group.

Businesses located in Washington DC are prohibited from discriminating against anyone because of their political affiliation: ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits"

https://www.facebook.com/theredhen.info/posts/1443107845790337
They stated that they are not the same restaurant. They did not state they have experienced a downturn in business as you claimed.

Please admit that you lied.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
1. The vast majority were not charged until Trump came along. They were processed by the Border Patrol officials, loaded into a bus, and sent back where they came from. Charges were reserved for drug smugglers, human traffickers, or those who had attempted multiple border crossings.
No those who uttered the magic words "I request Political Asylum were not loaded onto a bus and sent back where they came from.

You don't have approaching 11 million people illegally in the United States because 75 percent of them follow the rules.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
They stated that they are not the same restaurant. They did not state they have experienced a downturn in business as you claimed.

Please admit that you lied.
Business was booming that's why they bothered to post about it.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
What the United States needs to do and it ridiculous that it did not do so years ago is implement the e-verify program.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
I am totally fine with the idea that if you go through life being an asshole that at some point it begins to catch up with you.


Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,444
113
18 U.S. Code § 594 - Intimidation of voters

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
C-M, that law applies to people who stand outside polling booths with baseball bats and signs saying "Try and vote and we will kill you."

It doesn't apply to people who yell "Go home, idiot!" at politicians they don't like.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,444
113
Simple in that you believe everyone agrees with your perspective. Since they do not.

Presume you are aware that this action was actually forced by the 1997 Flores settlement, consent decree and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Just wait for the lawsuit against the administration stating that law trumps (no pun intended) Executive Order and that the President has no power to have children detained together with their parents.

Which is a back door way of attempting to tie the hands of the government so that they must release all asylum seekers into the general population even knowing from past experience that but a small minority ever show up from their asylum hearing rather than keeping them in detention until their asylum claim is resolved.
Congratulations! You've just made a valiant attempt to legally justify Kiddie Koncentration Kamps.

Please explain why no other administration to this point has felt the legal necessity to justify detaining children en masse and separately from their parents then? Because something here makes fuck all sense.

And the guy who is supposed to be straightening out all this legal and policy mess - the president - spent this evening ranting at Jimmy Fallon for messing his hair at an interview in 2016. So I don't think the fuck-up is going to get fixed worth shit under this administration. Do you?


http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ing-jimmy-fallon-for-apologizing-over-tonight
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
It's shocking that anyone can support this restaurant's illegal behaviour.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Congratulations! You've just made a valiant attempt to legally justify Kiddie Koncentration Kamps.

Please explain why no other administration to this point has felt the legal necessity to justify detaining children en masse and separately from their parents then?
Because other administrations have not been willing to take the heat of confining asylum seekers who illegally enter the country until their petition is heard. Further you may not agree with the policy but thus far saying that the children are being kept in substandard conditions just isn't true.

As already said a very great deal of this problem could be addressed by implementing e-verify and increasing policing aid to Central American states rather than threatening to decrease it.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Congratulations! You've just made a valiant attempt to legally justify Kiddie Koncentration Kamps.

Please explain why no other administration to this point has felt the legal necessity to justify detaining children en masse and separately from their parents then? Because something here makes fuck all sense.

And the guy who is supposed to be straightening out all this legal and policy mess - the president - spent this evening ranting at Jimmy Fallon for messing his hair at an interview in 2016. So I don't think the fuck-up is going to get fixed worth shit under this administration. Do you?
With all due respect to any honest lawyers here (lol), That has since the days of Hammurabi been the role of lawyers: To justify what the rulers do.

The judges and lawyers during the regimes of Stalin and Hitler made sure that the rule of law was taken care of, and that everything was done in a legally appropriate way. The lawyers during the Bush/Cheney regime made sure that waterboarding and other means of torture was squarly within the law, as Aardie and others will argue to this day. Likewise concentration camps for children in the view of Trump regime lawyers and Aardie et al here, is required by law.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
C-M, that law applies to people who stand outside polling booths with baseball bats and signs saying "Try and vote and we will kill you."

It doesn't apply to people who yell "Go home, idiot!" at politicians they don't like.
No, but "yelling go home, idiot" particularly when it is done while harassing people eating dinner reduces political discourse to that of a Banana Republic. If this is acceptable behaviour towards the Trump administration will it be be acceptable behaviour when the next Democratic Administration is in office?
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts