|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace. But by securing indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise guilty plea from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president. “Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s fucked.”
The first charges in the Mueller probe have kindled talk of what the endgame for Trump looks like, according to conversations with a half-dozen advisers and friends of the president. For the first time since the investigation began, the prospect of impeachment is being considered as a realistic outcome and not just a liberal fever dream. According to a source, advisers in the West Wing are on edge and doing whatever they can not to be ensnared. One person close to Dina Powell and Gary Cohn said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up.
The consensus among the advisers I spoke to is that Trump faces few good options to thwart Mueller. For one, firing Mueller would cross a red line, analogous to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during Watergate, pushing establishment Republicans to entertain the possibility of impeachment. “His options are limited, and his instinct is to come out swinging, which won’t help things,” said a prominent Republican close to the White House.
Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the deteriorating situation by lashing out on Twitter and venting in private to friends. He’s frustrated that the investigation seems to have no end in sight. “Trump wants to be critical of Mueller,” one person who’s been briefed on Trump’s thinking says. “He thinks it’s unfair criticism. Clinton hasn’t gotten anything like this. And what about Tony Podesta? Trump is like, When is that going to end?” According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far. Speaking to Steve Bannon on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call. When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation. “Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg said. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.” (The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment by deadline.)
[...]
www.vanityfair.com
|
On November 02 2017 03:35 Danglars wrote:
Kind of like how random folks come in and cast ignorant aspersions.
There's like two or three people that agree with me. All my responses are basically with people that disagree. Are you really this out of touch?
Danglars, you've delivered plenty of informed criticisms of Trump in the past. I know your opinions are not 100% compatible with someone like RiK's blind faith in him.
But you never engage with him over these disagreements. You only respond to RiK in affirmation and ignore him otherwise. You'd rather watch liberals squirm responding to him than be honest.
On November 02 2017 03:45 brian wrote:
the insinuation is that the right is more party loyalty over actually holding true to beliefs. the evidence is libs being willing to disagree in-party rather before they’d blindly get in line to support a turd sandwich.
i don’t agree. the simplest explanation here is that a conservative in the thread need not disagree with every subjectively wrong conservative opinion because it would only get lost in the noise of all the libs already saying so
I wasn't trying to generalize the right. Other conservative posters like xDaunt or Introvert don't do this to the extent that Danglars does.
|
|
|
Not unreasonable to blame your treasure secretary and chief economic adviser if they make a shit bill.
Tho ofc it doesn't help that your own congress is split on what it wants.
|
On November 02 2017 03:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace. But by securing indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise guilty plea from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president. “Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s fucked.”
The first charges in the Mueller probe have kindled talk of what the endgame for Trump looks like, according to conversations with a half-dozen advisers and friends of the president. For the first time since the investigation began, the prospect of impeachment is being considered as a realistic outcome and not just a liberal fever dream. According to a source, advisers in the West Wing are on edge and doing whatever they can not to be ensnared. One person close to Dina Powell and Gary Cohn said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up.
The consensus among the advisers I spoke to is that Trump faces few good options to thwart Mueller. For one, firing Mueller would cross a red line, analogous to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during Watergate, pushing establishment Republicans to entertain the possibility of impeachment. “His options are limited, and his instinct is to come out swinging, which won’t help things,” said a prominent Republican close to the White House.
Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the deteriorating situation by lashing out on Twitter and venting in private to friends. He’s frustrated that the investigation seems to have no end in sight. “Trump wants to be critical of Mueller,” one person who’s been briefed on Trump’s thinking says. “He thinks it’s unfair criticism. Clinton hasn’t gotten anything like this. And what about Tony Podesta? Trump is like, When is that going to end?” According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far. Speaking to Steve Bannon on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call. When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation. “Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg said. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.” (The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment by deadline.)
[...]
www.vanityfair.com
The Roger Stone suggestion later in that article is troubling. Sounds like what guilty people do.
|
The buck stops right outside the oval office.
|
Lawyers for an undocumented 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy have filed a federal lawsuit demanding the government release her from a children's shelter.
The Department of Health and Human Services has refused.
Border Patrol agents—in a highly criticized action—took the child into custody after she received an operation at a hospital.
The lawsuit, filed in San Antonio federal court on Tuesday, claims that Rosa Maria Hernandez has a constitutional right to be in her parents' care.
The child, who has mental and physical disabilities, has lived in Laredo, Texas, with her mother and father — who are also unauthorized — for the past 10 years.
"Rosa Maria is being taken care of by strangers," says Michael Tan, an ACLU lawyer who is representing Hernandez. "Imagine sending your child to the hospital for surgery, only to have law enforcement sweep in and take them away from you."
Last week, doctors in Laredo sent Hernandez to Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi for emergency gall bladder surgery. Because that city is beyond a federal immigration checkpoint, her parents asked an adult cousin — who is a U.S. citizen — to accompany her on the medical trip.
At the checkpoint outside the South Texas town of Freer, Border Patrol agents learned that the sick girl was not in the country legally. They took her into custody, followed her to the hospital, and waited outside her recovery room.
When she was discharged the next day, they transported her to a child-friendly shelter contracted by HHS in San Antonio. She is now in deportation proceedings.
Her lawyers say the girl is "confused" at the shelter because she has never been away from home.
Gabriel Acosta, assistant chief patrol agent in Laredo, says his agents followed a 10-year-old federal law for handling a UAC — an unaccompanied alien child.
"By law we have to do exactly what we did," he said in an interview in sector headquarters.
Most of the immigrant children who have fallen under this law have traveled alone from Central America to the Texas border. It is unusual for agents to take into custody a juvenile immigrant who already lives in the United States. They deemed her unaccompanied because the cousin with whom she was traveling is not a parent or legal guardian. Acosta says his agents were not initially aware that her real parents lived 60 miles away in Laredo.
"A white Nissan Sentra entered a primary inspection lane at a Border Patrol checkpoint," Acosta said. The car was marked as a medical transport vehicle. "During that inspection, it was revealed that the two passengers in the back, the cousin was a U.S. citizen and the juvenile was not. She was here illegally. At that point, we had to verify the story and ensure this child was not the victim of trafficking. Once that was established, then our agents — instead of processing her there at the checkpoint — actually escorted her to the hospital."
Acosta said as a matter of course "any unaccompanied child we come into contact with, their well-being must be taken into consideration."
But Leticia Gonzalez, a lawyer for Hernandez based in San Antonio, said taking the girl to the shelter was clearly not in her best interest. Reading the hospital discharge papers, Gonzalez said that doctors recommended Hernandez be released to "a family member who is familiar with her medical and psychological needs." NPR asked HHS if its youth shelters are set up to handle fragile medical cases like this one. Spokesperson Victoria Palmer sent this response: "As a matter of policy, in order to protect the privacy and security of the unaccompanied alien children ... HHS does not identify individual UAC and will not comment on specific cases."
Acosta said his office has received hundreds of calls from outraged citizens referring to agents as thugs, and worse.
"Our agents acted compassionately and professionally from the initial encounter to when she was released to the car of Health and Human Services," he said.
The lawsuit maintains that Rosa Maria was not unaccompanied.
"She's lived in the U.S. since she was three months old and since that time her parents have been there to take care of her," said Michael Tan. He added that immigration agents were not required to do what they did.
"A line agent always has discretion to exercise his judgment and not target someone for an enforcement action," Tan says. "And this case is the best possible example you could imagine for prosecutorial discretion. There really is no reason for Border Patrol to have gone after a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy while she was seeking medical care."
Rosa Maria Hernandez's mother and father have applied to HHS to be named her sponsors so that she can be released to them and come home. Lawyer Leticia Gonzalez says that process typically takes two to three months, but because of "special factors" in the Hernandez case HHS is expediting the vetting of her sponsors. The parents are hopeful their daughter can come home in two to three more weeks.
Source
|
On November 02 2017 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan. I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse. I'd just like to point out this is why I don't buy the lesser of two evil crap. Here's mohdoo arguing that we need to engage in a race to the bottom but stay in second place. I'm curious how Kwark is processing this since he reflexively resisted mohdoo's position and then I'm presuming began noticing the parallels between mohdoo's argument and one's he's made previously?
I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.
It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated.
|
On November 02 2017 04:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 03:55 Nevuk wrote:Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace. But by securing indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise guilty plea from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president. “Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s fucked.”
The first charges in the Mueller probe have kindled talk of what the endgame for Trump looks like, according to conversations with a half-dozen advisers and friends of the president. For the first time since the investigation began, the prospect of impeachment is being considered as a realistic outcome and not just a liberal fever dream. According to a source, advisers in the West Wing are on edge and doing whatever they can not to be ensnared. One person close to Dina Powell and Gary Cohn said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up.
The consensus among the advisers I spoke to is that Trump faces few good options to thwart Mueller. For one, firing Mueller would cross a red line, analogous to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during Watergate, pushing establishment Republicans to entertain the possibility of impeachment. “His options are limited, and his instinct is to come out swinging, which won’t help things,” said a prominent Republican close to the White House.
Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the deteriorating situation by lashing out on Twitter and venting in private to friends. He’s frustrated that the investigation seems to have no end in sight. “Trump wants to be critical of Mueller,” one person who’s been briefed on Trump’s thinking says. “He thinks it’s unfair criticism. Clinton hasn’t gotten anything like this. And what about Tony Podesta? Trump is like, When is that going to end?” According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far. Speaking to Steve Bannon on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call. When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation. “Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg said. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.” (The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment by deadline.)
[...]
www.vanityfair.com The Roger Stone suggestion later in that article is troubling. Sounds like what guilty people do.
I mean, Trumps lawyer is right. The way to make the investigation go away is by not being guilty and waiting for it to conclude.
Defunding him will run into a lot of opposition, and makes you guilty as hell, same as firing him.
Uranium One investigation that would include Mueller would rely on it being a thing in the first place, which its not. So that can't work either. I doubt you could get a Grand Jury willing to touch something so obviously fabricated.
|
On November 02 2017 04:06 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 03:35 Danglars wrote:
Kind of like how random folks come in and cast ignorant aspersions.
There's like two or three people that agree with me. All my responses are basically with people that disagree. Are you really this out of touch? Danglars, you've delivered plenty of informed criticisms of Trump in the past. I know your opinions are not 100% compatible with someone like RiK's blind faith in him. But you never engage with him over these disagreements. You only respond to RiK in affirmation and ignore him otherwise. You'd rather watch liberals squirm responding to him than be honest. Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 03:45 brian wrote:
the insinuation is that the right is more party loyalty over actually holding true to beliefs. the evidence is libs being willing to disagree in-party rather before they’d blindly get in line to support a turd sandwich.
i don’t agree. the simplest explanation here is that a conservative in the thread need not disagree with every subjectively wrong conservative opinion because it would only get lost in the noise of all the libs already saying so I wasn't trying to generalize the right. Other conservative posters like xDaunt or Introvert don't do this to the extent that Danglars does.
This forum is massively tilted to the left. I criticize Trump and I got repeatedly for months classified with people that couldn't criticize him and were Trumpists. Trolls and shitposters still do so. His opinions are like red meat to the stupidest posters in the forum and it's pretty fun to watch them go at it. Seriously, TheYango, you should be smart enough to know not to feed the trolls on the left or the right.
I happened to think the backlash at Mohdoo was absolutely comical. Like, breathtakingly comical. Not like
Mohdoo, I think compromising in this way will be too damaging to our base.
Mohdoo, I think we can achieve majorities without it
But more like
Here's mohdoo arguing that we need to engage in a race to the bottom but stay in second place.
you sound like the people who were all about “enhanced interrogation” post 9/11
how come the people that we should meet halfway are always on the right of the person speaking and never on the left of the person speaking
I agreed with the opinion expressed and responded in kind. For exactly those reasons. I was expecting a little more agreement on stopping the propaganda lines given that he admits liberal orthodoxy on America is majority sub-par humans.
On November 02 2017 03:45 brian wrote:
the insinuation is that the right is more party loyalty over actually holding true to beliefs. the evidence is libs being willing to disagree in-party rather before they’d blindly get in line to support a turd sandwich.
i don’t agree. the simplest explanation here is that a conservative in the thread need not disagree with every subjectively wrong conservative opinion because it would only get lost in the noise of all the libs already saying so
I budget my time on who's worth engaging with and what topics are worth posting on in length. Let the shitposters and trolls have their fun in their playground and say ignorant bullshit back and forth. If the person only halfway in the slime thinks you implicitly approve of activities by not commenting, they're probably not interested in seeing true on the topic.
On May 13 2015 07:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 05:02 Wolfstan wrote:On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. Are you being sarcastic like that surfer riot video? Because I'm really not sure. The tone? Yes a bit, I am mimicking the standard talking points/rhetoric used when racial injustice issues come up. The facts are the facts though. Almost 70% of government benefits go to white people. White people have had every opportunity everyone else has and then some in America. If the problems black people face are supposed to be primarily of their own making surely the heavy burden white people put on the government and hard working Americans who pay for those benefits white people overwhelmingly receive is also of their own making? Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share. Source According to your data table white are mainly receiving benefits tied to their contributions (social security) while blacks and hispanics are receiving benefits tied to their economic circumstances (poor / unemployed). The benefits to blacks would be dis-proportionally paid for by whites, which would make the whole system re-distributive from whites to blacks and hispanics. Seriously, just skip to the personal insults and move on to someone/something else. We are both well aware we can't engage in productive discussion with each other. I didn't mean any ill will. If you post what I consider to be bad information on a public forum I'm going to publicly note it. You are welcome to ignore my post, rather than engage, if you prefer. Your post couldn't come off as more disingenuous if you tried man. There are tons of 'bad information' posts, you cherry pick which ones you want to 'publicly note' as being 'bad information'. It's transparent as all hell and you're not fooling anyone. Slowly but surely as your posts have gone down in quality more and more people are getting wise to your non-sense. You may think your little "well some people/situations don't fit that pattern" one-liners are some revelation, without which the discussion would be woefully off course, but they are little more than childish rejoinders. The people for which you point out the most pointless 'flaws' in their argument is almost exclusively something they have already considered and is not relevant to the larger point. Evidenced by your remark about the redistributive nature of government benefits. Yes, I tend to point out the bad information posts coming from the lefties. That's largely because when a righty makes a post, there are far more lefties here who will actively try to refute it. You guys generally don't need my help there and I don't enjoy piling on like a bunch of grim patrons. As for the relevance of my post, I don't see why your 'larger point' should be taken seriously when it is built upon a bunch of garbage. If your posts cannot survive scrutiny, than your posts are a failure. It's up to you to make arguments that don't suck, and it's up to you to tackle any challenges to your opinions.
Jonny from fucking two years ago.
|
On November 02 2017 04:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Lawyers for an undocumented 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy have filed a federal lawsuit demanding the government release her from a children's shelter.
The Department of Health and Human Services has refused.
Border Patrol agents—in a highly criticized action—took the child into custody after she received an operation at a hospital.
The lawsuit, filed in San Antonio federal court on Tuesday, claims that Rosa Maria Hernandez has a constitutional right to be in her parents' care.
The child, who has mental and physical disabilities, has lived in Laredo, Texas, with her mother and father — who are also unauthorized — for the past 10 years.
"Rosa Maria is being taken care of by strangers," says Michael Tan, an ACLU lawyer who is representing Hernandez. "Imagine sending your child to the hospital for surgery, only to have law enforcement sweep in and take them away from you."
Last week, doctors in Laredo sent Hernandez to Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi for emergency gall bladder surgery. Because that city is beyond a federal immigration checkpoint, her parents asked an adult cousin — who is a U.S. citizen — to accompany her on the medical trip.
At the checkpoint outside the South Texas town of Freer, Border Patrol agents learned that the sick girl was not in the country legally. They took her into custody, followed her to the hospital, and waited outside her recovery room.
When she was discharged the next day, they transported her to a child-friendly shelter contracted by HHS in San Antonio. She is now in deportation proceedings.
Her lawyers say the girl is "confused" at the shelter because she has never been away from home.
Gabriel Acosta, assistant chief patrol agent in Laredo, says his agents followed a 10-year-old federal law for handling a UAC — an unaccompanied alien child.
"By law we have to do exactly what we did," he said in an interview in sector headquarters.
Most of the immigrant children who have fallen under this law have traveled alone from Central America to the Texas border. It is unusual for agents to take into custody a juvenile immigrant who already lives in the United States. They deemed her unaccompanied because the cousin with whom she was traveling is not a parent or legal guardian. Acosta says his agents were not initially aware that her real parents lived 60 miles away in Laredo.
"A white Nissan Sentra entered a primary inspection lane at a Border Patrol checkpoint," Acosta said. The car was marked as a medical transport vehicle. "During that inspection, it was revealed that the two passengers in the back, the cousin was a U.S. citizen and the juvenile was not. She was here illegally. At that point, we had to verify the story and ensure this child was not the victim of trafficking. Once that was established, then our agents — instead of processing her there at the checkpoint — actually escorted her to the hospital."
Acosta said as a matter of course "any unaccompanied child we come into contact with, their well-being must be taken into consideration."
But Leticia Gonzalez, a lawyer for Hernandez based in San Antonio, said taking the girl to the shelter was clearly not in her best interest. Reading the hospital discharge papers, Gonzalez said that doctors recommended Hernandez be released to "a family member who is familiar with her medical and psychological needs." NPR asked HHS if its youth shelters are set up to handle fragile medical cases like this one. Spokesperson Victoria Palmer sent this response: "As a matter of policy, in order to protect the privacy and security of the unaccompanied alien children ... HHS does not identify individual UAC and will not comment on specific cases."
Acosta said his office has received hundreds of calls from outraged citizens referring to agents as thugs, and worse.
"Our agents acted compassionately and professionally from the initial encounter to when she was released to the car of Health and Human Services," he said.
The lawsuit maintains that Rosa Maria was not unaccompanied.
"She's lived in the U.S. since she was three months old and since that time her parents have been there to take care of her," said Michael Tan. He added that immigration agents were not required to do what they did.
"A line agent always has discretion to exercise his judgment and not target someone for an enforcement action," Tan says. "And this case is the best possible example you could imagine for prosecutorial discretion. There really is no reason for Border Patrol to have gone after a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy while she was seeking medical care."
Rosa Maria Hernandez's mother and father have applied to HHS to be named her sponsors so that she can be released to them and come home. Lawyer Leticia Gonzalez says that process typically takes two to three months, but because of "special factors" in the Hernandez case HHS is expediting the vetting of her sponsors. The parents are hopeful their daughter can come home in two to three more weeks. Source
I just want to say this story is horrific. I want the people who approved this arrest dragged before congress to justify themselves.
|
Danglars is such a snowflake that we can’t just be honest around him. We can be honest with Mohdoo and he doesn’t get so upset that he stops listening. Danglars could learn a lot from the way Mohdoo discusses his beliefs and ideas.
|
On November 02 2017 04:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Lawyers for an undocumented 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy have filed a federal lawsuit demanding the government release her from a children's shelter.
The Department of Health and Human Services has refused.
Border Patrol agents—in a highly criticized action—took the child into custody after she received an operation at a hospital.
The lawsuit, filed in San Antonio federal court on Tuesday, claims that Rosa Maria Hernandez has a constitutional right to be in her parents' care.
The child, who has mental and physical disabilities, has lived in Laredo, Texas, with her mother and father — who are also unauthorized — for the past 10 years.
"Rosa Maria is being taken care of by strangers," says Michael Tan, an ACLU lawyer who is representing Hernandez. "Imagine sending your child to the hospital for surgery, only to have law enforcement sweep in and take them away from you."
Last week, doctors in Laredo sent Hernandez to Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi for emergency gall bladder surgery. Because that city is beyond a federal immigration checkpoint, her parents asked an adult cousin — who is a U.S. citizen — to accompany her on the medical trip.
At the checkpoint outside the South Texas town of Freer, Border Patrol agents learned that the sick girl was not in the country legally. They took her into custody, followed her to the hospital, and waited outside her recovery room.
When she was discharged the next day, they transported her to a child-friendly shelter contracted by HHS in San Antonio. She is now in deportation proceedings.
Her lawyers say the girl is "confused" at the shelter because she has never been away from home.
Gabriel Acosta, assistant chief patrol agent in Laredo, says his agents followed a 10-year-old federal law for handling a UAC — an unaccompanied alien child.
"By law we have to do exactly what we did," he said in an interview in sector headquarters.
Most of the immigrant children who have fallen under this law have traveled alone from Central America to the Texas border. It is unusual for agents to take into custody a juvenile immigrant who already lives in the United States. They deemed her unaccompanied because the cousin with whom she was traveling is not a parent or legal guardian. Acosta says his agents were not initially aware that her real parents lived 60 miles away in Laredo.
"A white Nissan Sentra entered a primary inspection lane at a Border Patrol checkpoint," Acosta said. The car was marked as a medical transport vehicle. "During that inspection, it was revealed that the two passengers in the back, the cousin was a U.S. citizen and the juvenile was not. She was here illegally. At that point, we had to verify the story and ensure this child was not the victim of trafficking. Once that was established, then our agents — instead of processing her there at the checkpoint — actually escorted her to the hospital."
Acosta said as a matter of course "any unaccompanied child we come into contact with, their well-being must be taken into consideration."
But Leticia Gonzalez, a lawyer for Hernandez based in San Antonio, said taking the girl to the shelter was clearly not in her best interest. Reading the hospital discharge papers, Gonzalez said that doctors recommended Hernandez be released to "a family member who is familiar with her medical and psychological needs." NPR asked HHS if its youth shelters are set up to handle fragile medical cases like this one. Spokesperson Victoria Palmer sent this response: "As a matter of policy, in order to protect the privacy and security of the unaccompanied alien children ... HHS does not identify individual UAC and will not comment on specific cases."
Acosta said his office has received hundreds of calls from outraged citizens referring to agents as thugs, and worse.
"Our agents acted compassionately and professionally from the initial encounter to when she was released to the car of Health and Human Services," he said.
The lawsuit maintains that Rosa Maria was not unaccompanied.
"She's lived in the U.S. since she was three months old and since that time her parents have been there to take care of her," said Michael Tan. He added that immigration agents were not required to do what they did.
"A line agent always has discretion to exercise his judgment and not target someone for an enforcement action," Tan says. "And this case is the best possible example you could imagine for prosecutorial discretion. There really is no reason for Border Patrol to have gone after a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy while she was seeking medical care."
Rosa Maria Hernandez's mother and father have applied to HHS to be named her sponsors so that she can be released to them and come home. Lawyer Leticia Gonzalez says that process typically takes two to three months, but because of "special factors" in the Hernandez case HHS is expediting the vetting of her sponsors. The parents are hopeful their daughter can come home in two to three more weeks. Source I just want to say this story is horrific. I want the people who approved this arrest dragged before congress to justify themselves.
Its easy to do horrible things to people when they are a stack of files you never read and not human beings.
|
On November 02 2017 04:35 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is such a snowflake that we can’t just be honest around him. We can be honest with Mohdoo and he doesn’t get so upset that he stops listening. Danglars could learn a lot from the way Mohdoo discusses his beliefs and ideas.
I do find it a little telling when Danglars and RiK think Mohdoo should feel offended from this "backlash" when in fact, he's open to discussion and even said "show me where I'm wrong in my thinking" and approaches these talks pragmatically.
|
On November 02 2017 04:41 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:35 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is such a snowflake that we can’t just be honest around him. We can be honest with Mohdoo and he doesn’t get so upset that he stops listening. Danglars could learn a lot from the way Mohdoo discusses his beliefs and ideas. I do find it a little telling when Danglars and RiK feel like Mohdoo should feel offended from this "backlash" when in fact, he's open to discussion and even said "show me where I'm wrong in my thinking" and approaches these talks pragmatically.
You need to read better. He's a big guy and can take care of himself.
Free yourself from the binary Agreement or You Should Feel Offended.
|
|
|
United States43532 Posts
On November 02 2017 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
You guys are treating like Mohdoo like crap here and its not a pretty view. I do not feel even slightly mistreated. If someone thinks I am totally wrong, they should tell me I am totally wrong.
You might be able to derive some conclusions about the quality of your opinion from RiK's support.
|
|
|
On November 02 2017 04:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:41 NeoIllusions wrote:On November 02 2017 04:35 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is such a snowflake that we can’t just be honest around him. We can be honest with Mohdoo and he doesn’t get so upset that he stops listening. Danglars could learn a lot from the way Mohdoo discusses his beliefs and ideas. I do find it a little telling when Danglars and RiK feel like Mohdoo should feel offended from this "backlash" when in fact, he's open to discussion and even said "show me where I'm wrong in my thinking" and approaches these talks pragmatically. You need to read better. He's a big guy and can take care of himself. Free yourself from the binary Agreement or You Should Feel Offended.
How is it possible that this is your go-to response when trying to instigate when it doesn't seem like you've read posts yourself?
I'm pointing out that you think posters responded with "backlash" to Mohdoo when in fact, he said quite the opposite. You're right, he can take care of himself, so why you claiming backlash when he didn't say so himself?
|
On November 02 2017 04:51 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:43 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 04:41 NeoIllusions wrote:On November 02 2017 04:35 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is such a snowflake that we can’t just be honest around him. We can be honest with Mohdoo and he doesn’t get so upset that he stops listening. Danglars could learn a lot from the way Mohdoo discusses his beliefs and ideas. I do find it a little telling when Danglars and RiK feel like Mohdoo should feel offended from this "backlash" when in fact, he's open to discussion and even said "show me where I'm wrong in my thinking" and approaches these talks pragmatically. You need to read better. He's a big guy and can take care of himself. Free yourself from the binary Agreement or You Should Feel Offended. How is it possible that this is your go-to response when trying to instigate when it doesn't seem like you've read posts yourself? I'm pointing out that you think posters responded with "backlash" to Mohdoo when in fact, he said quite the opposite.
Quote what you thought meant "Mohdoo should feel offended."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
