sho nuff
Footballguy
Who is being hurt by the current tarried talk in this country?
Nobody really wins...but the little guy and producers get screwed.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Issues Thread #1 Immigration Issues (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Nobody really wins...but the little guy and producers get screwed.
Mile High
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Do you think such a system is sustainable?IvanKaramazov said:
What would happen to the overall population numbers? What industries would be affected the most?
Anthony Bourdain passing has put his comments on immigration front and center again and they really got me thinking. Does the US need a certain amount of illegal immigration? Has the US actually become dependent on it?
Calvitron Johnson
Footballguy
Understandable. Then maybe we make prison a nightmare so much so that they beg to be executed. They are worthless to begin with and before anyone chimes in with the teacher having sex with the underage student, because I know some of you can't wait to run with that angle, that's not the ones I'm talking about.timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Well that's a different and complicated issue (prisons) and I wouldn't mind having a discussion about that. I need to read up on some facts first as I know very little about how rapists are currently treated.
timschochet
Footballguy
Putting the politics of Trump aside for a moment, what’s going on with the migrant children separation issue illustrates a point I’ve been making for several years now, and it’s aimed directly at those of you who want to have a harder line against illegal immigration:
We (the American public) haven’t got the stomach for it.
Thats the problem in a nutshell. Even if you got a majority to agree with you that these people need to be deported and we have to stop new folks from coming in, we simply don’t have the stomach to enforce such a policy. We’re not going to tolerate what it would take.
We (the American public) haven’t got the stomach for it.
Thats the problem in a nutshell. Even if you got a majority to agree with you that these people need to be deported and we have to stop new folks from coming in, we simply don’t have the stomach to enforce such a policy. We’re not going to tolerate what it would take.
Last edited by a moderator:
If we impose tariffs on Mexico they will impose an equal amount of tariffs back. Mexico will not be paying for the wall that way. And immigration fees won't come close to even covering the interest on the cost of the wall.
I say Congress should get it's act together and get an immigration reform bill done once and for all. In the bill it should be written that once we receive the first billion dollar installment payment from Mexico (our President said Mexico would definitely be paying for the border wall) we should began construction immediately. I will not allow anyone to make a liar out of my President by having us fund it!
Last edited by a moderator:
rustycolts
Footballguy
Interesting take on the issue in this article.
Both The Left And Right Are Wrong On Immigration
by JSB Morse
Immigration has been a hot button issue since the inception of the United States, but it seems to have hit a particularly partisan critical mass since President Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policyhas been implemented. Suddenly, the mainstream media has picked up on the illegal immigrant detention centers and, most notably, the separation of immigrant children from their parents once apprehended.
Never mind the fact that this has been going on at the border for decades under several presidents, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)-celebrant Barack Obama. And never mind that the outrage ignores (perhaps intentionally) the legality of the immigrants in question. Whether or not you think it should be illegal to cross a national border, it is in fact illegal and people who do illegal things typically have their children “taken away”, yet there’s no uproar about those anti-family policies.
The Trumpeters seem to be content with imprisoning hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to protect our economy, even if it means breaking up families while the offenders are in detention. After all, illegal immigration weighs us down and makes us poorer, they argue. If we had no social welfare programs that immigrants could take advantage of, open immigration could be an option, but until then, open borders means economic suicide.
On the other side, the left is outraged by the feds’ treatment of people who aren’t harming anyone. They demand that we loosen our immigration policy and at the very least figure out a way to keep families together. Migrants are a boon to our economy and even if they aren’t, we are wealthy enough to support their quest for a better life, they argue.
All of this partisan uproar has missed the point. Both sides are focusing on the symptom of illegal immigration and ignore the disease of horrifying economic conditions in the source of emigration.
Opening borders and bringing countless immigrants into the United States would wreck our economy and not do anything to fix the problem. Of course this is akin to the ‘eating the rich mentality’ that pervades socialists. It’s a self-destructive policy at best.
Similarly, building the biggest, most “hugely” wall on the planet and perpetuating the deportation cycle will put us further in debt and still not solve the problem.
The solution isn’t to keep them out of our economic promised land or to let them in; the solution is to give them their own economic promised land.
Special Economic Zones (SEZ) are areas in which business and trade laws are different from the rest of the country for the express purpose of improving the economy. Hong Kong is the quintessential example. The minimally-regulated British outpost off the coast of mainland China turned a resource-poor rock with a few thousand people to one of the world’s largest economies within a couple generations. It was so successful that China imitated the model several times throughout their country to varying degrees of success.
Several other jurisdictions have tried the idea, most notably Ireland, several African countries, and pertinent to the topic of American immigration: Honduras.
Some obstacles to these SEZs include initial capital and the willingness of the presiding jurisdiction to relinquish some authority. The idea to turn a relatively inhospitable part of a woefully impoverished country into a leading economic superpower within 50 years has to hold sway with even the most despotic government administrators. Of course, the problem is that once bureaucrats have power, it’s nearly impossible to get them to relinquish it.
The US could offer both seed money and political pressure to encourage the development of these zones. With the illegal immigration fight costing over $100 billion in the United States, it would behoove us to invest some of that in a real solution. President Trump, who recently tossed up the idea of a space military force, could take the lead in the only win-win policy. Instead of launching storm troopers, Trump should be launching economic missionaries.
America isn’t some magical place where money grows on trees. True, the country is resource-rich, but so is Venezuela and it’s rapidly becoming the financial toilet of the hemisphere due to its socialist economic policies. The United States is a destination for economic refugees mainly because of its free market system. We need to stop being reactive regarding immigration, and instead start promoting the system which is bringing people here, elsewhere.
It’s heartbreaking to see families broken up over a particularly arbitrary ruling. The children, especially, are victims of circumstance, not hardened criminals. Separating them from their families and putting them in cages is not going to fix the problem. But neither is opening our borders. Only when we improve the economic situation of the source countries can we hope to stem the flow of economic refugees and illegal immigrants into the United States. When that happens, perhaps we can have the conversation about turning one of our cities — say Detroit? — into a Special Economic Zone of our own.
Both The Left And Right Are Wrong On Immigration
by JSB Morse
Immigration has been a hot button issue since the inception of the United States, but it seems to have hit a particularly partisan critical mass since President Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policyhas been implemented. Suddenly, the mainstream media has picked up on the illegal immigrant detention centers and, most notably, the separation of immigrant children from their parents once apprehended.
Never mind the fact that this has been going on at the border for decades under several presidents, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)-celebrant Barack Obama. And never mind that the outrage ignores (perhaps intentionally) the legality of the immigrants in question. Whether or not you think it should be illegal to cross a national border, it is in fact illegal and people who do illegal things typically have their children “taken away”, yet there’s no uproar about those anti-family policies.
The Trumpeters seem to be content with imprisoning hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to protect our economy, even if it means breaking up families while the offenders are in detention. After all, illegal immigration weighs us down and makes us poorer, they argue. If we had no social welfare programs that immigrants could take advantage of, open immigration could be an option, but until then, open borders means economic suicide.
On the other side, the left is outraged by the feds’ treatment of people who aren’t harming anyone. They demand that we loosen our immigration policy and at the very least figure out a way to keep families together. Migrants are a boon to our economy and even if they aren’t, we are wealthy enough to support their quest for a better life, they argue.
All of this partisan uproar has missed the point. Both sides are focusing on the symptom of illegal immigration and ignore the disease of horrifying economic conditions in the source of emigration.
Opening borders and bringing countless immigrants into the United States would wreck our economy and not do anything to fix the problem. Of course this is akin to the ‘eating the rich mentality’ that pervades socialists. It’s a self-destructive policy at best.
Similarly, building the biggest, most “hugely” wall on the planet and perpetuating the deportation cycle will put us further in debt and still not solve the problem.
The solution isn’t to keep them out of our economic promised land or to let them in; the solution is to give them their own economic promised land.
Special Economic Zones (SEZ) are areas in which business and trade laws are different from the rest of the country for the express purpose of improving the economy. Hong Kong is the quintessential example. The minimally-regulated British outpost off the coast of mainland China turned a resource-poor rock with a few thousand people to one of the world’s largest economies within a couple generations. It was so successful that China imitated the model several times throughout their country to varying degrees of success.
Several other jurisdictions have tried the idea, most notably Ireland, several African countries, and pertinent to the topic of American immigration: Honduras.
Some obstacles to these SEZs include initial capital and the willingness of the presiding jurisdiction to relinquish some authority. The idea to turn a relatively inhospitable part of a woefully impoverished country into a leading economic superpower within 50 years has to hold sway with even the most despotic government administrators. Of course, the problem is that once bureaucrats have power, it’s nearly impossible to get them to relinquish it.
The US could offer both seed money and political pressure to encourage the development of these zones. With the illegal immigration fight costing over $100 billion in the United States, it would behoove us to invest some of that in a real solution. President Trump, who recently tossed up the idea of a space military force, could take the lead in the only win-win policy. Instead of launching storm troopers, Trump should be launching economic missionaries.
America isn’t some magical place where money grows on trees. True, the country is resource-rich, but so is Venezuela and it’s rapidly becoming the financial toilet of the hemisphere due to its socialist economic policies. The United States is a destination for economic refugees mainly because of its free market system. We need to stop being reactive regarding immigration, and instead start promoting the system which is bringing people here, elsewhere.
It’s heartbreaking to see families broken up over a particularly arbitrary ruling. The children, especially, are victims of circumstance, not hardened criminals. Separating them from their families and putting them in cages is not going to fix the problem. But neither is opening our borders. Only when we improve the economic situation of the source countries can we hope to stem the flow of economic refugees and illegal immigrants into the United States. When that happens, perhaps we can have the conversation about turning one of our cities — say Detroit? — into a Special Economic Zone of our own.
timschochet
Footballguy
Wow. I think that's a great article. I think it's spot on- to a point.
rustycolts, if you said to me, give me 100 billion dollars and let me wave a magic wand and we can make Latin America prosperous I'd be willing to spend it. Good for them, good for us, and we wouldn't have this migrant problem. It would be like the Marshall Plan except for the south of us, and it would be a wonderful investment.
But we both know what the problem is: almost all of the countries down there are governed by corrupt autocracies, either leftist or rightist. Whatever money we give to them has little chance of every getting into the most productive hands, the sort of people who will create new industry and prosperity; it is much more likely to go into the same old corrupt hands that has been receiving it all along. And what good does that do?
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the idea, at least on paper. But I have no idea how to execute it in such a way as to make it effective.
rustycolts, if you said to me, give me 100 billion dollars and let me wave a magic wand and we can make Latin America prosperous I'd be willing to spend it. Good for them, good for us, and we wouldn't have this migrant problem. It would be like the Marshall Plan except for the south of us, and it would be a wonderful investment.
But we both know what the problem is: almost all of the countries down there are governed by corrupt autocracies, either leftist or rightist. Whatever money we give to them has little chance of every getting into the most productive hands, the sort of people who will create new industry and prosperity; it is much more likely to go into the same old corrupt hands that has been receiving it all along. And what good does that do?
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the idea, at least on paper. But I have no idea how to execute it in such a way as to make it effective.
rustycolts
Footballguy
Yes that was probably the fictional writer coming out in him. He has written several very interesting books.
I agree with what you said.Plus what ever political party that was in power at the time and suggested it the other party would completely block it.It does however sound like the simplest solution.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Trump rules the nation by dividing the people.
Trumps shouts to the crowd at a rally “Build the wall”… and what his supporters hear is “Deport the wet backs… they are all rapists and animals,” “Send the N*****s back to Africa,” “Chinks” are not real Americans,” and “Ban the Muslims.”
Trump shouts “Make America Great Again” and his cult followers hear, “Make America White Again.”
He has no interest in border security or solving immigration issues. He must control the beast that is his visceral base, and the best way to do that is to continue to fan the embers of blatant racism. Make no mistake - he was a racist 50 years ago, and what he is doing today is consistent with his lifelong patterns of behavior.
Trumps shouts to the crowd at a rally “Build the wall”… and what his supporters hear is “Deport the wet backs… they are all rapists and animals,” “Send the N*****s back to Africa,” “Chinks” are not real Americans,” and “Ban the Muslims.”
Trump shouts “Make America Great Again” and his cult followers hear, “Make America White Again.”
He has no interest in border security or solving immigration issues. He must control the beast that is his visceral base, and the best way to do that is to continue to fan the embers of blatant racism. Make no mistake - he was a racist 50 years ago, and what he is doing today is consistent with his lifelong patterns of behavior.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
This was nothing more than an excuse for you to type racial slurs. I bet you got a huge kick out of it too. Exposed yourself here.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
You’re treading on dangerous ground here.
Yes, Trump’s message, and his appeal, is all about white nationalism and fear of whites becoming a minority. But at the same time, his supporters and other conservatives do not consider themselves racists or white nationalists. It’s an emotional, almost subconcious aspect of their thinking. On the conscious level, they regard this as a question of the rule of law.
And when you challenge them on this it makes them angry- in fact, they are probably angrier at liberals who call them bigots than they are even at illegal immigrants- and they simply shut you down. (And in this forum, they will complain about you, and since Joe Bryant regards this as unfair, you will be suspended if you continue down this path.)
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
That’s a fair assessment.
I started a thread this week asking people if they could, without being snarky or derisive, defend the opposing view of your own. And later in reframing that thought exercise, I challenged people to be careful about dismissing 60-70 million fellow Americans as being crazy or ignorant simply because their views are different than your own.
Although I do feel there is def a subset of Trumpkins who are bigots, and by the virtue of his position and the moral authority of the office (which transcends his persona), he’s given license for those people to express themselves more freely. That demagoguery will lead to violence and spreading hate.
But for most Republicans, the racism is at most an undertone or byproduct. The vast majority of conservatives arrived at their position through sincere belief, logic and reason. It was wrong for me to paint all Trump supporters with such a broad and disparaging brush. I apologize for going low there.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
You're the type of guy that tells as many people as possible the racist joke he heard, but tells it as if you are so disgusted by it and plays the I can't believe he told that joke card.No puppet. You're the puppet!
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
I think immigration is a good thing, hell over half of the people I work with on a daily basis are on work Visas and the number continues to grow...and what exactly is wrong with that? Nothing. Where I have limited understanding is those that are not following whatever the process is - it seems the people I work with go through a process where they have a job lined up and have a Visa that allows them to live here and perform that function. If they desire citizenship they go through a different process - but that is certainly not a requirement.
So my only "fear" of open borders would be that there was a large influx of people with no jobs lined up. I don't know if that is a real fear or an imagined boogeyman. If folks came here with absolutely nothing and no means lined up for housing/clothes/food/education/medical care, etc. then it would seem like that would be a drain on "our" economy. It is noble to serve those that are less fortunate whether they be legal/illegal/adults/children/etc. but at some point when we determine what that number should be there should be some correlation to tangible benefit both to those immigrating here as well as the society into which they are immigrating.
So I side with immigration, probably more and better streamlined than we have now, but I am NOT for open borders. I could be persuaded though if I had a better understanding of what the real impact to our economy (good and bad) would be with open borders.
So my only "fear" of open borders would be that there was a large influx of people with no jobs lined up. I don't know if that is a real fear or an imagined boogeyman. If folks came here with absolutely nothing and no means lined up for housing/clothes/food/education/medical care, etc. then it would seem like that would be a drain on "our" economy. It is noble to serve those that are less fortunate whether they be legal/illegal/adults/children/etc. but at some point when we determine what that number should be there should be some correlation to tangible benefit both to those immigrating here as well as the society into which they are immigrating.
So I side with immigration, probably more and better streamlined than we have now, but I am NOT for open borders. I could be persuaded though if I had a better understanding of what the real impact to our economy (good and bad) would be with open borders.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Fake court dates are being issued in immigration court. Here’s why
Our broken immigration system.
>> ... Justin Sweeney, an immigration attorney in Fresno, California, says other people have been issued nonexistent dates, such as Nov. 31, and that others have received dates that appear to be correct but, when the immigrants appear at court, they discover that their case wasn’t scheduled or that it was slated for a completely different date.
“They’re ‘dummy dates.’ That’s the term that gets thrown around,” Sweeney said. “It’s a serious problem nationwide.”
So why are made-up court dates getting issued in the first place by agencies like USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement?
Immigration authorities send notices to people who have been denied residence or citizenship. But until June of last year, USCIS would send the notices without dates, because the function of putting the cases on the calendar was left for the local courts to do at a later time. The forms just said the time and place was “to be determined,” which often occurred years later.
The reason USCIS sends the notices is because it is the official charging document that makes a foreign national deportable. Immigration lawyers sued, saying notices without court dates and times are defective. Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, ruling that in order for the government to claim that an immigrant is deportable, the notices have to list a date and place to appear in court.
In order to comply with the ruling, immigration officials began sending notices with a time and place — even if they were fake. The reason, lawyers say, is because having a notice with a date and place allows the government to stop immigrants from qualifying for deportation relief.
According to immigration law, a foreign national is eligible for relief from deportation if the person has lived in the U.S. for a period of 10 years prior to the receipt of the notice to appear. That’s why the date that’s printed on a notice to appear is important: If an immigrant gets a notice to appear that provides a date and time anytime before the 10 years are up, the government can claim that it’s enough to begin the process of deportation and stop the clock toward eligibility for deportation relief.
“It’s arbitrary,” Fox-Isicoff said. “This causes the line at the immigration court to be quite lengthy, as these individuals cannot find their case on the docket. They have no way of knowing without going to the immigration court if the date is real or not, spending extensive funds on counsel, and often traveling huge distances.”
Making it even more difficult is the fact that USCIS doesn’t communicate with the courthouses in real time when issuing the dates, so the courthouses don’t know to put it on the court calendar. <<
Our broken immigration system.
>> ... Justin Sweeney, an immigration attorney in Fresno, California, says other people have been issued nonexistent dates, such as Nov. 31, and that others have received dates that appear to be correct but, when the immigrants appear at court, they discover that their case wasn’t scheduled or that it was slated for a completely different date.
“They’re ‘dummy dates.’ That’s the term that gets thrown around,” Sweeney said. “It’s a serious problem nationwide.”
So why are made-up court dates getting issued in the first place by agencies like USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement?
Immigration authorities send notices to people who have been denied residence or citizenship. But until June of last year, USCIS would send the notices without dates, because the function of putting the cases on the calendar was left for the local courts to do at a later time. The forms just said the time and place was “to be determined,” which often occurred years later.
The reason USCIS sends the notices is because it is the official charging document that makes a foreign national deportable. Immigration lawyers sued, saying notices without court dates and times are defective. Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, ruling that in order for the government to claim that an immigrant is deportable, the notices have to list a date and place to appear in court.
In order to comply with the ruling, immigration officials began sending notices with a time and place — even if they were fake. The reason, lawyers say, is because having a notice with a date and place allows the government to stop immigrants from qualifying for deportation relief.
According to immigration law, a foreign national is eligible for relief from deportation if the person has lived in the U.S. for a period of 10 years prior to the receipt of the notice to appear. That’s why the date that’s printed on a notice to appear is important: If an immigrant gets a notice to appear that provides a date and time anytime before the 10 years are up, the government can claim that it’s enough to begin the process of deportation and stop the clock toward eligibility for deportation relief.
“It’s arbitrary,” Fox-Isicoff said. “This causes the line at the immigration court to be quite lengthy, as these individuals cannot find their case on the docket. They have no way of knowing without going to the immigration court if the date is real or not, spending extensive funds on counsel, and often traveling huge distances.”
Making it even more difficult is the fact that USCIS doesn’t communicate with the courthouses in real time when issuing the dates, so the courthouses don’t know to put it on the court calendar. <<
whoknew
Footballguy
How McKinsey Helped the Trump Administration Detain and Deport Immigrants
...
ICE quickly redirected McKinsey toward helping the agency figure out how to execute the White House’s clampdown on illegal immigration.
But the money-saving recommendations the consultants came up with made some career ICE staff uncomfortable. They proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, as well as on medical care and supervision of detainees, according to interviews with people who worked on the project for both ICE and McKinsey and 1,500 pages of documents obtained from the agency after ProPublica filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.
McKinsey’s team also looked for ways to accelerate the deportation process, provoking worries among some ICE staff members that the recommendations risked short-circuiting due process protections for migrants fighting removal from the United States. The consultants, three people who worked on the project said, seemed focused solely on cutting costs and speeding up deportations — activities whose success could be measured in numbers — with little acknowledgment that these policies affected thousands of human beings.
In what one former official described as “heated meetings” with McKinsey consultants, agency staff members questioned whether saving pennies on food and medical care for detainees justified the potential human cost.
...
ICE quickly redirected McKinsey toward helping the agency figure out how to execute the White House’s clampdown on illegal immigration.
But the money-saving recommendations the consultants came up with made some career ICE staff uncomfortable. They proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, as well as on medical care and supervision of detainees, according to interviews with people who worked on the project for both ICE and McKinsey and 1,500 pages of documents obtained from the agency after ProPublica filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.
McKinsey’s team also looked for ways to accelerate the deportation process, provoking worries among some ICE staff members that the recommendations risked short-circuiting due process protections for migrants fighting removal from the United States. The consultants, three people who worked on the project said, seemed focused solely on cutting costs and speeding up deportations — activities whose success could be measured in numbers — with little acknowledgment that these policies affected thousands of human beings.
In what one former official described as “heated meetings” with McKinsey consultants, agency staff members questioned whether saving pennies on food and medical care for detainees justified the potential human cost.
whoknew
Footballguy
This makes me so sad.
Inside the Cell Where a Sick 16-Year-Old Boy Died in Border Patrol Care
Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez, a 16-year-old Guatemalan migrant, was seriously ill when immigration agents put him in a small South Texas holding cell with another sick boy on the afternoon of May 19.
A few hours earlier, a nurse practitioner at the Border Patrol’s dangerously overcrowded processing center in McAllen had diagnosed him with the flu and measured his fever at 103 degrees. She said that he should be checked again in two hours and taken to the emergency room if his condition worsened.
None of that happened. Worried that Carlos might infect other migrants in the teeming McAllen facility, officials moved him to a cell for quarantine at a Border Patrol station in nearby Weslaco.
By the next morning, he was dead.
In a press release that day, Customs and Border Protection’s acting commissioner at the time, John Sanders, called Carlos’ death a “tragic loss.” The agency said that an agent had found Carlos “unresponsive” after checking in on him. Sanders said the Border Patrol was “committed to the health, safety and humane treatment of those in our custody.”
But the record shows that the Border Patrol fell far short of that standard with Carlos. ProPublica has obtained video that documents the 16-year-old’s last hours, and it shows that Border Patrol agents and health care workers at the Weslaco holding facility missed increasingly obvious signs that his condition was perilous.
The cellblock video shows Carlos writhing for at least 25 minutes on the floor and a concrete bench. It shows him staggering to the toilet and collapsing on the floor, where he remained in the same position for the next four and a half hours.
According to a “subject activity log” maintained by the Border Patrol throughout Carlos’ custody, an agent checked on him three times during the early morning hours in which he slipped from unconsciousness to death, but reported nothing alarming about the boy.
The video shows the only way CBP officials could have missed Carlos’ crisis is that they weren’t looking. His agony was apparent, even in grainy black and white, making clear the agent charged with monitoring him failed to perform adequate checks, if he even checked at all. The coroner who performed an autopsy on Carlos said she was told the agent occasionally looked into the cell through the window.
Inside the Cell Where a Sick 16-Year-Old Boy Died in Border Patrol Care
Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez, a 16-year-old Guatemalan migrant, was seriously ill when immigration agents put him in a small South Texas holding cell with another sick boy on the afternoon of May 19.
A few hours earlier, a nurse practitioner at the Border Patrol’s dangerously overcrowded processing center in McAllen had diagnosed him with the flu and measured his fever at 103 degrees. She said that he should be checked again in two hours and taken to the emergency room if his condition worsened.
None of that happened. Worried that Carlos might infect other migrants in the teeming McAllen facility, officials moved him to a cell for quarantine at a Border Patrol station in nearby Weslaco.
By the next morning, he was dead.
In a press release that day, Customs and Border Protection’s acting commissioner at the time, John Sanders, called Carlos’ death a “tragic loss.” The agency said that an agent had found Carlos “unresponsive” after checking in on him. Sanders said the Border Patrol was “committed to the health, safety and humane treatment of those in our custody.”
But the record shows that the Border Patrol fell far short of that standard with Carlos. ProPublica has obtained video that documents the 16-year-old’s last hours, and it shows that Border Patrol agents and health care workers at the Weslaco holding facility missed increasingly obvious signs that his condition was perilous.
The cellblock video shows Carlos writhing for at least 25 minutes on the floor and a concrete bench. It shows him staggering to the toilet and collapsing on the floor, where he remained in the same position for the next four and a half hours.
According to a “subject activity log” maintained by the Border Patrol throughout Carlos’ custody, an agent checked on him three times during the early morning hours in which he slipped from unconsciousness to death, but reported nothing alarming about the boy.
The video shows the only way CBP officials could have missed Carlos’ crisis is that they weren’t looking. His agony was apparent, even in grainy black and white, making clear the agent charged with monitoring him failed to perform adequate checks, if he even checked at all. The coroner who performed an autopsy on Carlos said she was told the agent occasionally looked into the cell through the window.
Similar threads
