Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
MSNBC jumping the shark?...Ratings indicate yes (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jon_mx
- Start date
Trump's intelligence has never really been in question. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and you only have to hear him talk to realize he has the intelligence of about the fifth grader. What's frightening is how he has people following him like the Pied Piper. And it doesn't seem to matter how vile and disgusting the things he does are, people who I thought were decent still support him 100%. I just can't think of an explanation for that. I scratch my head every day.
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
He got his troll on....hes got nothing....msnbc has a bias for sure but they are no fox news
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
I will read your reference.
While I do, I offer this:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-from-parents-immigration-border/index.html
It outlines Kelly's version of how this policy came to be.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Launched in May, the policy has brought stepped-up criminal prosecutions of people crossing the border without authorization. Children traveling with parents caught at the border are forcibly removed and placed into government care while their parents face criminal charges in court. The result has drawn criticism from some immigrant advocates, lawmakers and clergy.
whoknew
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
Why is that funny? Jon said there is a law that requires parents and children to be separated. I asked for that cite. I'd like to read it.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
I have read on Zadvyda v. Davis and see nothing related to the separation of children, rather it seems to apply to:
Now, I have pulled up the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It is rather long, thus I have only read the table of contents. Do you know which sections refers to our discussion here?
If not, I will dig in...but a little guidance would be helpful.
whoknew
Footballguy
So jon's point that "separating children from detainees was not Trump's idea, it was a law passed seemingly to protect children several years back" is just a lie promulgated by Trump to deflect and place blame on Democrats?
This site does a decent job explaining the issue. There was a better one, but I can't find it now.
https://cis.org/2008-Trafficking-Law-Largely-Inapplicable-Current-Border-Crisis
"Launched in May"
Hmmm, going to take some pretty crafty scrambling to blame that on Obama
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
"I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,"
whoknew
Footballguy
This law deals with children who are being trafficked and/or unaccompanied minors. Indeed -
"Since there is little evidence to suggest that illegal immigrant children currently arriving at the U.S. border are victims of trafficking, and since few can be described as "unaccompanied alien children" under federal law, the 2008 trafficking law has limited applicability to the current border surge. Accordingly, the Obama administration should be limiting its use of the law where possible. Even where the 2008 act is applicable, provisions within the law allow its enforcement to be limited in "exceptional circumstances"
--
So how does that apply to the current situation?
No. Trump idea is to crack down on illegal border crossing was to detain and prosecuting them. To do that, the law seems to make it impoosible to detain the children too, so they get separated. Trump is ultimayely responsible, but the separation aspect is part of the law.
whoknew
Footballguy
Can you explain how that works? I've read your article and I don't see how you would get to that conclusion from it.
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
My take as well.
Also, this article also seems to lower the relevance of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008...that I am skimming now.
Thank you. All you had to say was those four words. Trump is ultimately responsible. This Thread can be wrapped up now
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
From my link: https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-from-parents-immigration-border/index.html
Thus, it appears that other legal options were available.
But, they did not, due this:
Note: These are Kelly's own words. "In order to deter"....not "in order to follow the law".
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180530/fact-checking-immigration-spin-on-separating-families-and-1500-lost-children
The Facts
These claims mostly revolve around "catch and release," the practice by U.S. authorities of releasing children and asylum seekers into the community while they await immigration hearings. Many fail to show up for their hearings and remain in the country without legal authorization.
The Trump administration says these legal "loopholes" abet the trafficking of children while allowing smugglers and bad actors to profit. Immigration and civil rights groups say that it's misleading to portray the asylum process as a loophole and that, in recent years, thousands of people legitimately have sought refuge in the United States from the violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
---
'We have to break up families. The Democrats gave us that law.'
Trump says his administration's policy of separating children from their families can be traced back to a Democratic immigration law. But as we've reported, catch and release is not a single law so much as a collection of policies and court rulings spanning Democratic and Republican administrations. We gave the president Three Pinocchios in April when he tweeted that catch and release was a "liberal" and "Democrat" law.
In a briefing with reporters on May 29, Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser to Trump, explained the president's rationale for pinning these policies on Democrats. The gist of it is that these laws may or may not be Democratic creations, but Democrats own them because they don't support Trump's more-restrictive immigration agenda.
Trump tweeted "Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS."
"It's a pretty straightforward issue," Miller said. "Near-unanimous Republican agreement about the need to change law and policy in order to close those loopholes, and the Democrats are opposing them."
It's quite a stretch to say there's "near-unanimous Republican agreement" on this agenda or unified opposition by Democrats. The Secure and Succeed Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, failed 39 to 60 in the Senate in February. The White House backed this proposal, which got 36 of 51 GOP votes and three Democratic votes, far short of passage. Three other immigration proposals, backed by broader mixes of Republicans and Democrats, each got more than 50 votes - enough to pass if there had not been a procedural vote requiring 60 votes.
Miller mentioned the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, a law signed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. The TVPRA is meant to give safe harbor to victims of human trafficking and says unaccompanied children "are exempt from prompt return to their home country," unless they come from Canada or Mexico, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Children fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are covered by this law.
Miller also mentioned the "Flores settlement" from 1997. This legal agreement struck by President Bill Clinton's administration requires the federal government to release rather than detain undocumented immigrant children, first to their parents if possible, to other adult relatives if not, and to licensed programs willing to accept custody if no relatives are available. As a last resort, U.S. officials may place children in the "least restrictive" setting available.
A federal judge in California ruled in 2015 that the Flores settlement covered all children in immigration officials' custody, regardless of whether they were apprehended at the border alone or with family members. The judge's ruling also covered any accompanying parents. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the latter part of the ruling and said the Flores settlement required only that children, not parents, be released. Therefore, the government is required to keep immigrant children and their parents together only for a limited time.
But none of these legal developments requires the Trump administration to separate children from their families. Instead, separations are rising in large part because of a "zero tolerance" policy implemented by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In April, Sessions directed prosecutors to charge as many illegal entry offenses as possible.
Devin O'Malley, a Justice Department spokesman, said in the May 29 briefing that people charged with these offenses often are sentenced to time served and transferred to the Department of Homeland Security for deportation.
So, on one hand, the Flores settlement and the TVPRA require that children be released. On the other, Sessions's zero-tolerance policy subjects any accompanying parents to criminal prosecution and eventual deportation.
Laying this on Democrats does not track with reality. The TVPRA was signed by Bush, and the Flores settlement is a court-approved agreement, not a law. Nothing required the Trump administration to separate children from their families until Sessions's zero-tolerance policy made it a practical necessity.
Miller also mentioned a Supreme Court ruling from 2001, Zadvydas v. Davis. The court ruled that immigrants who were under deportation orders - but whom no other country would accept - generally could not be detained by U.S. officials for more than six months.
Congress cannot pass a law that overturns this court ruling. It would require a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling overturning Zadvydas.
Republican senators introduced legislation to narrow the scope of the ruling in 2014, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to retain custody of some individuals past the six-month deadline in special circumstances, including when the individual was deemed a threat to national security or had a highly contagious disease. Parts of this bill were folded into the Secure and Succeed Act.
The president asked Congress to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "to retain custody of illegal aliens whose home countries will not accept their repatriation," so long as it is "consistent with the Constitution," according to a statement of principles and policies he sent to Congress in October 2017
The Facts
These claims mostly revolve around "catch and release," the practice by U.S. authorities of releasing children and asylum seekers into the community while they await immigration hearings. Many fail to show up for their hearings and remain in the country without legal authorization.
The Trump administration says these legal "loopholes" abet the trafficking of children while allowing smugglers and bad actors to profit. Immigration and civil rights groups say that it's misleading to portray the asylum process as a loophole and that, in recent years, thousands of people legitimately have sought refuge in the United States from the violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
---
'We have to break up families. The Democrats gave us that law.'
Trump says his administration's policy of separating children from their families can be traced back to a Democratic immigration law. But as we've reported, catch and release is not a single law so much as a collection of policies and court rulings spanning Democratic and Republican administrations. We gave the president Three Pinocchios in April when he tweeted that catch and release was a "liberal" and "Democrat" law.
In a briefing with reporters on May 29, Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser to Trump, explained the president's rationale for pinning these policies on Democrats. The gist of it is that these laws may or may not be Democratic creations, but Democrats own them because they don't support Trump's more-restrictive immigration agenda.
Trump tweeted "Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS."
"It's a pretty straightforward issue," Miller said. "Near-unanimous Republican agreement about the need to change law and policy in order to close those loopholes, and the Democrats are opposing them."
It's quite a stretch to say there's "near-unanimous Republican agreement" on this agenda or unified opposition by Democrats. The Secure and Succeed Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, failed 39 to 60 in the Senate in February. The White House backed this proposal, which got 36 of 51 GOP votes and three Democratic votes, far short of passage. Three other immigration proposals, backed by broader mixes of Republicans and Democrats, each got more than 50 votes - enough to pass if there had not been a procedural vote requiring 60 votes.
Miller mentioned the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, a law signed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. The TVPRA is meant to give safe harbor to victims of human trafficking and says unaccompanied children "are exempt from prompt return to their home country," unless they come from Canada or Mexico, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Children fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are covered by this law.
Miller also mentioned the "Flores settlement" from 1997. This legal agreement struck by President Bill Clinton's administration requires the federal government to release rather than detain undocumented immigrant children, first to their parents if possible, to other adult relatives if not, and to licensed programs willing to accept custody if no relatives are available. As a last resort, U.S. officials may place children in the "least restrictive" setting available.
A federal judge in California ruled in 2015 that the Flores settlement covered all children in immigration officials' custody, regardless of whether they were apprehended at the border alone or with family members. The judge's ruling also covered any accompanying parents. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the latter part of the ruling and said the Flores settlement required only that children, not parents, be released. Therefore, the government is required to keep immigrant children and their parents together only for a limited time.
But none of these legal developments requires the Trump administration to separate children from their families. Instead, separations are rising in large part because of a "zero tolerance" policy implemented by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In April, Sessions directed prosecutors to charge as many illegal entry offenses as possible.
Devin O'Malley, a Justice Department spokesman, said in the May 29 briefing that people charged with these offenses often are sentenced to time served and transferred to the Department of Homeland Security for deportation.
So, on one hand, the Flores settlement and the TVPRA require that children be released. On the other, Sessions's zero-tolerance policy subjects any accompanying parents to criminal prosecution and eventual deportation.
Laying this on Democrats does not track with reality. The TVPRA was signed by Bush, and the Flores settlement is a court-approved agreement, not a law. Nothing required the Trump administration to separate children from their families until Sessions's zero-tolerance policy made it a practical necessity.
Miller also mentioned a Supreme Court ruling from 2001, Zadvydas v. Davis. The court ruled that immigrants who were under deportation orders - but whom no other country would accept - generally could not be detained by U.S. officials for more than six months.
Congress cannot pass a law that overturns this court ruling. It would require a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling overturning Zadvydas.
Republican senators introduced legislation to narrow the scope of the ruling in 2014, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to retain custody of some individuals past the six-month deadline in special circumstances, including when the individual was deemed a threat to national security or had a highly contagious disease. Parts of this bill were folded into the Secure and Succeed Act.
The president asked Congress to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "to retain custody of illegal aliens whose home countries will not accept their repatriation," so long as it is "consistent with the Constitution," according to a statement of principles and policies he sent to Congress in October 2017
The link and post above is about the most thorough and balance discussion on the topic I have seen. I need to read through it more closely.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Nah, you can't convert a nation to fascism in one step. But Trump is definitely making progress. We all see where he's trying to steer us. He said as much himself on a few occasions. No need to act like he's not doing it. He owns it. You should too.
In a briefing with reporters on May 29, Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser to Trump, explained the president's rationale for pinning these policies on Democrats. The gist of it is that these laws may or may not be Democratic creations, but Democrats own them because they don't support Trump's more-restrictive immigration agenda.
Thats rich
Thats rich
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Trump exploiting a loop hole is "the law" you speak of?
There's a special place for Stephen Miller.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
When did this crackdown begin and couldn't the administration order a reprieve?
apalmer
Footballguy
(in his own link)
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I see that, LOL I only read the first post, then I only read the last post. Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Thanks to MoCS who drilled down on this we have more clarity. Even the articles you post say the laws claimed by the administration have no application. It sure as hell seems illegal to me.
honky kong
Footballguy
I don't get this at all. If the government engages in conduct that is similar in some ways to stuff the Nazis did, it's "jumping the shark" to point that out? Or is it only ok when the government goes Full Nazi? People are sensitive to that time in history repeating itself and rightfully so. As such, they are vigilant. And they're the problem here?
"I don't support this stuff but I'm going to complain about people's reaction to it instead of really talking about the action itself." And I see you've jumped right into your persecution complex, like you always do. We get it. This place it biased and you don't like it. Do yourself a favor and just go away.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Actually I think Joe S. is missing the real Gestapo comp which is that the Gestapo did not tell family of political prisoners where their family members had been taken. Apparently that is something that is going on, the parents, once having their children taken from them, are not informed of their whereabouts. That I think is a spot on Nazi comp because the point of that policy for them was as a matter of policy to discourage what they considered illegal behavior (for them anti-Party behavior, for us illegal border crossings).
I also don't think the comp of the tactic of claiming to take the children for showers/baths is all that inappropriate either. Once you get into the muck, fine distinctions like 'we're not murdering children we're just seizing and hiding them from their parents to punish them' get really cloudy anyway. Also, btw, as a conservative you should be against state power being used in this fashion and once granted be aware it could ultimately be used for far, far worse grotesque behavior.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the dodge that we keep seeing on this board from “people who voted for Johnson”. Focus complaints on reactions, instead of the action spurring them.
squistion
Footballguy
Ted Lieu @tedlieu 18h18 hours ago
You know how we know @realDonaldTrump, @PressSec, and @WhiteHouse are LYING about family separation? Because even now they still can't point to a Democratic bill or law that requires ripping children away from parents.
Also @nytimes, the proper word to use here is LYING.
You know how we know @realDonaldTrump, @PressSec, and @WhiteHouse are LYING about family separation? Because even now they still can't point to a Democratic bill or law that requires ripping children away from parents.
Also @nytimes, the proper word to use here is LYING.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Your thread started with half truths and over the top stuff and you again play the victim when people call you out and correct your inaccuracies.So far we have:
1. Make it personal
2. Lies about motives
3. Mischaracterized arguements
4. Gross generalizations
5. Terrible analogies
6. Zero admission of fault from the left.
Great discussion guys!
. Really. Not one person on this forum can see the difference between arresting and detaining people trying to illegally enter into this country and rounding up people and exterminating them because of their race/religion. Not one person is going to admit it is an absurd analogy which specifically mentions showers where Jews were gassed in?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Nobody is claiming it’s exactly the same in every way Jon...nobody.
But that you cant admit the similarities is on you...not everyone else.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
MSNBC Exclusive:
Border patrol documents from June 3-11 show that 91% of migrant parents who are referred to prosecution—after having their children forcibly taken away from them—are only being charged with a *misdemeanor*.
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/exclusive-366-migrant-kids-torn-from-parents-in-8-days-1257034819627?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
Border patrol documents from June 3-11 show that 91% of migrant parents who are referred to prosecution—after having their children forcibly taken away from them—are only being charged with a *misdemeanor*.
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/exclusive-366-migrant-kids-torn-from-parents-in-8-days-1257034819627?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think HonkyKong got closer to the truth. You said at the top that you're "not a fan" of the policy, then you post articles that say the policy is illegal, but then you turn off your values and suggest you support Trump on this because of who is agreeing with you and how they are. Should think about that, especially as the nazis were themselves nihilists (insert Lebowski video here).
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
