Every day is a new circus.
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
This coming from the guy who told me he couldn't open a thread which we both knew wasn't true...
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
So she wasn't lying. Thanks for the link.
The toilets in CBP cells are often combo toilets/water fountains. We actually got pictures of these toilets through our lawsuit against the Tucson Sector Border Patrol, and people can be forced to drink out of them even though they're filthy.
People still finding this thread should know that @AOC confirmed my suspicions by responding to a tweet using the first image I posted. She clarified that it was even worse—the fountain was broken, so the only water source *was* the toilet bowl.
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezVerified account @AOCAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez Retweeted David Martosko
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I was removed from the thread in question, which meant that when I clicked on your link, it didn't open
Again - what on earth happened to you?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Don't play innocent. You know well that you can click the link just fine when you're not logged in, so don't be lazy and expect someone else to do your work for you.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This is what you choose to respond to?
What on earth happened to you Anna?:sigh:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
:chuckle: It's your post. You're having trouble understanding why I chose to respond to your post. :chuckle:
We wouldn't be having this conversation at all if you didn't keep posting goofy stuff at me.
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Judge blocks Trump policy keeping asylum seekers locked up
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday blocked a Trump administration policy that would keep thousands of asylum-seekers locked up while they pursue their cases, saying the Constitution demands that such migrants have a chance to be released from custody.
U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled Tuesday that people who are detained after entering the country to seek protection are entitled to bond hearings. Attorney General William Barr announced in April that the government would no longer offer such hearings, but instead keep them in custody. It was part of the administration's efforts to deter a surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pechman said that as people who have entered the U.S. and been detained here, they are entitled to the Fifth Amendment's due-process protections, including "a longstanding prohibition against indefinite civil detention with no opportunity to test its necessity."
Immigrant rights advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project sued to block the policy, which was due to take effect July 15.
"The court reaffirmed what has been settled for decades: that asylum-seekers who enter this country have a right to be free from arbitrary detention," Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said in a written statement. "Thousands of asylum-seekers will continue to be able to seek release on bond, as they seek protection from persecution and torture."
For the past 50 years, the government has given such asylum-seekers bond hearings before immigration judges where they can argue that they should be released because they are not flight risks and pose no threat to the public, the groups told the court. That gives the asylum-seekers an opportunity to reunite with relatives in the U.S. and to find lawyers to handle their asylum claims, making them more likely to succeed.
The new policy would end that practice, keeping between 15,000 and 40,000 immigrants in custody for six months or more without requiring the government to show that their detentions are justified, in violation of their due process rights, the groups argued.
Typically, close to half of asylum-seekers who are granted bond hearings are released from custody.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process which includes a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to assess the necessity of their detention, and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue," the judge wrote.
In her order, Pechman said the government must provide a bond hearing to any immigrant who has demonstrated that they have a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country within seven days of a request. The asylum-seekers must be released if not granted a hearing within that time frame, she said.
Pechman also said the burden must be on the government at such hearings to show that keeping asylum-seekers in custody is necessary because they pose a flight risk or a danger to the public.
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday blocked a Trump administration policy that would keep thousands of asylum-seekers locked up while they pursue their cases, saying the Constitution demands that such migrants have a chance to be released from custody.
U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled Tuesday that people who are detained after entering the country to seek protection are entitled to bond hearings. Attorney General William Barr announced in April that the government would no longer offer such hearings, but instead keep them in custody. It was part of the administration's efforts to deter a surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pechman said that as people who have entered the U.S. and been detained here, they are entitled to the Fifth Amendment's due-process protections, including "a longstanding prohibition against indefinite civil detention with no opportunity to test its necessity."
Immigrant rights advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project sued to block the policy, which was due to take effect July 15.
"The court reaffirmed what has been settled for decades: that asylum-seekers who enter this country have a right to be free from arbitrary detention," Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said in a written statement. "Thousands of asylum-seekers will continue to be able to seek release on bond, as they seek protection from persecution and torture."
For the past 50 years, the government has given such asylum-seekers bond hearings before immigration judges where they can argue that they should be released because they are not flight risks and pose no threat to the public, the groups told the court. That gives the asylum-seekers an opportunity to reunite with relatives in the U.S. and to find lawyers to handle their asylum claims, making them more likely to succeed.
The new policy would end that practice, keeping between 15,000 and 40,000 immigrants in custody for six months or more without requiring the government to show that their detentions are justified, in violation of their due process rights, the groups argued.
Typically, close to half of asylum-seekers who are granted bond hearings are released from custody.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process which includes a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to assess the necessity of their detention, and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue," the judge wrote.
In her order, Pechman said the government must provide a bond hearing to any immigrant who has demonstrated that they have a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country within seven days of a request. The asylum-seekers must be released if not granted a hearing within that time frame, she said.
Pechman also said the burden must be on the government at such hearings to show that keeping asylum-seekers in custody is necessary because they pose a flight risk or a danger to the public.
Lon
Well-known member
Possibly your prior post?
Well, it was more surprise seeing you in it participating, more than being surprised any other member of TOL would want to start it.
Btw, it seems you said 'disagree' then continued to agree with what I believe is the problem: We need to be less of this, as Christians. It makes 'us' look poor for it. I certainly didn't do it during Obama's Presidency. I prayed a lot.
I pet a cheetah. Kind of wiry which suprised me, but I hadn't really been talking about large cats. Rather, it is whatever is inside of a man. We've had some fairly basal presidents with mistresses, to date, all democrat but this one. Was Roosevelt a terrible president? J.F.K.? Clinton? King David a lousy king? If so, then we didn't get on the 'impeach' bandwagon fast enough.
:up:
There are things said by his detractors that I just cannot be associated with, regardless of my reservations. I don't support Trump, but I do support many godly individuals who do, even when they are wrong. I find extremism never fully expresses who I am and so I avoid the political pendulum of extremes. I'm not sure if my attempt at a moderate stance and view is appreciated, but it is my aim here.
With a 'horsewhip?'
But if that is what genuinely makes up the 'flood?' Perhaps a rabbit trail, but what would you do with the masses? What 'can' we do that would/could work?
I realize that. I saw suffering under Obama. I saw theses centers under Obama. I even saw what James Earl Jones called racialism. I was offended when children suffered in sexually confused bathrooms. I was offended when he allowed pastor's to rot in jail because 'it was their own fault.' True, but they were there under compulsion of Christ.
I don't believe a metaphorical horsewhipping is 'righteous' indignation against Dobson. It is rather terse and I think emoting beyond at least the impression I received from reading his letter.
Your metaphor is not a simile. You can't take exception, I don't believe here. I guess you can, but I don't think you can logistically. The one elicits the other. The separation just isn't there. It is like calling someone a donkey, without intending for a literal donkey to be the comparison.
To me? Seems slanted. He talked of interacting with the children meaningfully and against the description. To me, clearly he wasn't talking about them. He was talking about what border guards had reported to him, that he promised to pass on, and 2) he talked about what he himself was seeing. Do you doubt he saw sick people on this visit? Do you doubt he saw criminals? Do you doubt that some of them couldn't read or write? Do you doubt that many cannot understand English? I'm not quite understanding your angst. I know you are trying to express it, but I'm not seeing his report the same way you are. Can it be that you are reading it with emotion already well-in-place?
There! I'm with you. I can't make you the spokesman for BLM but I can ask, as a lawyer, Christian man, father, and teacher, what 'can' we do?
I see that. Remember James and John were sons of thunder. They didn't want to horsewhip, but call down fire. Luke 9:54,55
We get tunnel vision. MANY conservatives were just as/if not more outraged at Obama's presidency tenure. Many on TOL were incredibly disgruntled, and sure, there were some poor things said there too.
Yet, the NRA isn't the presidency. Then, people certainly do blame the NRA, so your analogy equitable. Were you thinking of such or trying for an extreme absurd? :idunno:
What specifically is impeachable at the moment?
Makes my attempt a bit down-letting
I had not read this into his letter, and I think some of it has to be read into it, because I'm not getting much of it 'out' of it upon even the second reading.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
[h=1]Trump Administration Drops Citizenship Question From Census[/h]
There will be no citizenship question on the 2020 census, a Justice Department spokesperson told TPM Tuesday after news broke that the administration was likely backing down from its fight to add it.
The spokesperson confirmed the news after a DOJ lawyer informed some of the lawyers challenging the question in court that a version of the survey without the question had been sent to the printers.
The Supreme Court invalidated the March 2018 decision by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to add the question. But the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, left plenty of legal room for the administration to re-add the question. The major obstacle facing the administration was time, as it claimed repeatedly in court filings that the survey forms needed to be sent to the printers this week.
There will be no citizenship question on the 2020 census, a Justice Department spokesperson told TPM Tuesday after news broke that the administration was likely backing down from its fight to add it.
The spokesperson confirmed the news after a DOJ lawyer informed some of the lawyers challenging the question in court that a version of the survey without the question had been sent to the printers.
The Supreme Court invalidated the March 2018 decision by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to add the question. But the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, left plenty of legal room for the administration to re-add the question. The major obstacle facing the administration was time, as it claimed repeatedly in court filings that the survey forms needed to be sent to the printers this week.
Lon
Well-known member
I'm not sure yelling "Hitler" in a crowded voting booth is quite the same, though.
Appreciate you coming to his defense. It isn't why I was afraid.
So she wasn't lying. Thanks for the link.
The toilets in CBP cells are often combo toilets/water fountains. We actually got pictures of these toilets through our lawsuit against the Tucson Sector Border Patrol, and people can be forced to drink out of them even though they're filthy.
People still finding this thread should know that @AOC confirmed my suspicions by responding to a tweet using the first image I posted. She clarified that it was even worse—the fountain was broken, so the only water source *was* the toilet bowl.
This was in fact the type of toilet we saw in the cell.Except there was just one, and the sink portion was not functioning - @AyannaPressley smartly tried to open the faucet, and nothing came out.So the women were told they could drink out of the bowl.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Retweeted David Martosko
I don't get it. There is another right next to it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I'm not sure yelling "Hitler" in a crowded voting booth is quite the same, though.
Appreciate you coming to his defense. It isn't why I was afraid.
I don't get it. There is another right next to it.
It's all about emotion lon
Logic and reason don't matter
Remember nick sandmann?