What's new
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!

The Trump Administration reverses decision, will not deport children with life threatening diseases- for the moment. (1 Viewer)

But the Trump administration recently told families who were granted permission to stay for medical care that their permission to stay has been rescinded and they have 33 days to leave the country. The policy, which was not publicly announced, is being applied retroactively to any requests filed on or before Aug. 7.

Wondering if any Trump supporters want to defend this one? Or explain to me how I'm misinterpreting what's going on? Go right ahead. 

 
Feature, Tim, you know the rest.
Gotta keep trying. I don't see how any decent person can't be disgusted with this. I suppose the best thing that can be hoped for is that it's some bureaucratic error, that Trump knows nothing about it, that as soon as he finds out about it he'll correct it.

But I am quite skeptical that this is the case. To me this has Trump and Stephen Miller written all over it. 

 
Well I kind of think this deserves its own thread:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-low-trump-immigration-policy-seeks-deport-sick-dying-children-n1047901

People are always speculating how low this administration can go. I think we may have found out. 
Again, for the umpteenth time......this administration is effing disgusting. So effing disgusting. You won't get a valid or reasonable response to why this needs to happen other than......they're brown, they take what's ours, we don't want them here. Full stop.

 
You'll get a response that references one of the following:

"....you're so obsessed with Trump...."

"...another post that could have been included in...."

"... Tim's posting again...."

"...NBC is fake news..."

But if you're waiting for a response that directly addresses the topic/issue originally addressed in the first post of the thread, I wouldn't hold your breath.

 
Gotta keep trying. I don't see how any decent person can't be disgusted with this. I suppose the best thing that can be hoped for is that it's some bureaucratic error, that Trump knows nothing about it, that as soon as he finds out about it he'll correct it.

But I am quite skeptical that this is the case. To me this has Trump and Stephen Miller written all over it. 
If they do a (reasonable) poll and find that 85-90% of the Trumpists (self described conservatives/Republicans/libertarians) support this policy what will you learn from that? 

It always seems "moderate" critics and "never Trump" conservatives believe that Trump/Miller are leading their base down this road. I believe it's the opposite. They're implementing cruel/evil anti-immigrant policies because that's what their base wants them to do.

 
I posted this 5 hours ago and still not a single Trump supporter has come into this thread, even though several of them have been in the forum since then, 

@GoBirds

Don’t Noona

@Widbil83

Anybody? Come on guys, explain how this is a good thing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they do a (reasonable) poll and find that 85-90% of the Trumpists (self described conservatives/Republicans/libertarians) support this policy what will you learn from that? 

It always seems "moderate" critics and "never Trump" conservatives believe that Trump/Miller are leading their base down this road. I believe it's the opposite. They're implementing cruel/evil anti-immigrant policies because that's what their base wants them to do.
I think that there's long been a disconnect between Republican intellectuals and moderates and their base. We saw it with the rise of the Tea Party a decade ago and Christine O'Donnell and the like. It's very difficult for conservative intellectuals to rectify what the actual base of the Republican Party is. If they were ignorant of it, they are no longer, that's for sure. 

 
If they do a (reasonable) poll and find that 85-90% of the Trumpists (self described conservatives/Republicans/libertarians) support this policy what will you learn from that? 

It always seems "moderate" critics and "never Trump" conservatives believe that Trump/Miller are leading their base down this road. I believe it's the opposite. They're implementing cruel/evil anti-immigrant policies because that's what their base wants them to do.
Maybe I’m naive but I don’t think even most Trump supporters would be in favor of this policy. I know that most of them are virulently anti illegal immigrant but they’re also decent human beings at heart. So I believe. 

 
I think that there's long been a disconnect between Republican intellectuals and moderates and their base. We saw it with the rise of the Tea Party a decade ago and Christine O'Donnell and the like. It's very difficult for conservative intellectuals to rectify what the actual base of the Republican Party is. If they were ignorant of it, they are no longer, that's for sure. 
The base of the Republican Party are not bad people. They’re the same decent, kind hearted folks they always were. They’re not racist. 

They’re just afraid. They see their way of life changing and being threatened and they’ve been manipulated and taken in by a bunch of wicked people on talk radio and now one in the White House. But that won’t last. 

 
The base of the Republican Party are not bad people. They’re the same decent, kind hearted folks they always were. They’re not racist. 

They’re just afraid. They see their way of life changing and being threatened and they’ve been manipulated and taken in by a bunch of wicked people on talk radio and now one in the White House. But that won’t last. 
I don't know. I personally figured out pretty early I wasn't giving Donald Trump any truck whatsoever and it's really, really a stretch to impute good motives to the base for electing him. Yes, a significant amount of people held their nose for judges and the gutting of the executive branch, but I'm not sure that's how he won the election. I'm less sanguine than you. 

 
The base of the Republican Party are not bad people. They’re the same decent, kind hearted folks they always were. They’re not racist. 

They’re just afraid. They see their way of life changing and being threatened and they’ve been manipulated and taken in by a bunch of wicked people on talk radio and now one in the White House. But that won’t last. 
Trump unequivocally proved your statement wrong by winning the Republican Primary. Being less racist is the only thing Trump could do that would lose him his supporters, every other policy position is malleable to his electorate. Morals don't matter, the debt doesn't matter, national security does not matter, every single thing Republicans have pretended to care about for the last 40 years gets completely forgotten once they have someone saying the racist stuff out-loud. He could grant amnesty to 200 immigrants and get more electoral push-back than if he gifted Alaska to Russia. 

Back to the topic on hand, I am waiting with bated breath for the pro-life movement to get involved in this. 

 
I think that there's long been a disconnect between Republican intellectuals and moderates and their base. We saw it with the rise of the Tea Party a decade ago and Christine O'Donnell and the like. It's very difficult for conservative intellectuals to rectify what the actual base of the Republican Party is. If they were ignorant of it, they are no longer, that's for sure. 
I think both partiesare made up of groups that don't necessarily have a lot in common with each other.The "Big Business" GOPers really don't have a lot in common with the Religious Right GOPers who care more about social policies. But they vote for the same candidates because without that economic/social policy coalition they wouldn't win elections. Similar divides exist in the Democratic party.

 
I think both partiesare made up of groups that don't necessarily have a lot in common with each other.The "Big Business" GOPers really don't have a lot in common with the Religious Right GOPers who care more about social policies. But they vote for the same candidates because without that economic/social policy coalition they wouldn't win elections. Similar divides exist in the Democratic party.
I think we agree upon that. It's not easy for Democrats to cobble together coalitions of Catholics and feminists, or, say progressives, unions and centrist business laws. I think one thing you'll find is that on each side, those belonging to that side find the distance between what each coalition wants as larger than exists on the other side. In other words, Democrats think Republicans are more unified than Democrats, and Republicans see Democrats as more unified than Republicans. I don't think that's true. I think, as you point out, that they're really examples of pluralism, properly understood. 

 
Maybe I’m naive but I don’t think even most Trump supporters would be in favor of this policy. I know that most of them are virulently anti illegal immigrant but they’re also decent human beings at heart. So I believe. 
What would it take to convince you that the Trump base favors the policy?   

 
I posted this 5 hours ago and still not a single Trump supporter has come into this thread, even though several of them have been in the forum since then, 

@GoBirds

Don’t Noona

@Widbil83

Anybody? Come on guys, explain how this is a good thing. 
They don't engage in a genuine manner anyway. Plus, the topic was, most likely, not mentioned on FOX News nor would Hannity mention it. The brainwashing has worked and your attempts to engage will be viewed as an attack. The behavior exhibited is disgusting... it hasn't changed one bit. It has gotten worse though.

 
Well I kind of think this deserves its own thread:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-low-trump-immigration-policy-seeks-deport-sick-dying-children-n1047901

People are always speculating how low this administration can go. I think we may have found out. 
Hadn't seen this thread until now.  I don't think you will find many Republicans or Democrats that would agree with this policy if the article written is true.  Seems like there has to be more to this than what is written.

 
There always seems to be the old fallback response from Republicans.....not a penny any non citizens until all the veterans are taken care of and off the streets. I always think, who’s stopping that? Present the bill to get it done. No Congressman will vote against it. In truth it’s just an excuse not to help others in need.

 
Hadn't seen this thread until now.  I don't think you will find many Republicans or Democrats that would agree with this policy if the article written is true.  Seems like there has to be more to this than what is written.
My skeptometer went up, too, and I qualify my previous statements by assuming the story is true as printed. 

 
Trump unequivocally proved your statement wrong by winning the Republican Primary. Being less racist is the only thing Trump could do that would lose him his supporters, every other policy position is malleable to his electorate. Morals don't matter, the debt doesn't matter, national security does not matter, every single thing Republicans have pretended to care about for the last 40 years gets completely forgotten once they have someone saying the racist stuff out-loud. He could grant amnesty to 200 immigrants and get more electoral push-back than if he gifted Alaska to Russia. 

Back to the topic on hand, I am waiting with bated breath for the pro-life movement to get involved in this. 
I have many Republican friends who are very nice people and at the same time thrilled with the job President is doing. They see the Democrats as evil for not being pro life, justify it by painting Democrats as corrupt ( Deep state)on other issues which are at times fabricated. A lot of these folks don’t watch the news and some of them only tune into the Hannitys or there favorite fake news ultra conservative website. But in the end I am beginning to realize there is a bit of bigotry and racism in them that they would deny exists.

 
Hadn't seen this thread until now.  I don't think you will find many Republicans or Democrats that would agree with this policy if the article written is true.  Seems like there has to be more to this than what is written.
I wonder if it’s the result of administrative dysfunction.  They may not be being purposefully cruel, but rather just might be chaotically implementing policies that weren’t carefully enough thought through.

 
Hadn't seen this thread until now.  I don't think you will find many Republicans or Democrats that would agree with this policy if the article written is true.  Seems like there has to be more to this than what is written.
Thank you. I didn’t figure you or most of the other Trump supporters around here would support something like this and it’s nice to learn that I was right about that. 

But as to your last sentence, I wouldn’t hang my hat on that assumption. The article I linked was one of several on the same subject and I haven’t seen anything to indicate that it’s wrong or that there’s “something more.” So you may have to accept the fact that this is what the Trump administration is doing. But if you learn otherwise please post it here; I’ll do the same.

 
There are about 30 articles which all report the same news: 

there is a single article which I was able to find that attempts to refute it, from Breitbart: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/immigration/2019/08/30/fact-check-no-donald-trump-did-not-decide-to-deport-kids-with-cancer/amp/

But if you bother to read this article beyond the headline, it doesn’t really refute the story. It first discusses and attempts to refute the news that Trump wanted to end automatic citizenship for children of military born in overseas bases (a completely different story.) it then notes that in the case of the sick children, the authority has been moved to ICE, an enforcement agency, without explaining how this contradicts anything- in fact it’s an important part of the story. And finally it complains that the AP story refers to the children as “immigrants” and not “illegal immigrants” as if that changes the facts. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you. I didn’t figure you or most of the other Trump supporters around here would support something like this and it’s nice to learn that I was right about that. 

But as to your last sentence, I wouldn’t hang my hat on that assumption. The article I linked was one of several on the same subject and I haven’t seen anything to indicate that it’s wrong or that there’s “something more.” So you may have to accept the fact that this is what the Trump administration is doing. But if you learn otherwise please post it here; I’ll do the same.
You have to understand why I am sceptical.  We just had AOC caught lying that asylum seekers at the border were told to drink out of the toilet.  

Hopefully they change course if this story is true.

 
You have to understand why I am sceptical.  We just had AOC caught lying that asylum seekers at the border were told to drink out of the toilet.  

Hopefully they change course if this story is true.
She didn’t lie about that. She repeated a story she was told by somebody there- more than one person in fact. It was impossible to confirm so it may have been irresponsible for her and others to repeat it. But that doesn’t make it a lie. 

 
Well I kind of think this deserves its own thread:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-low-trump-immigration-policy-seeks-deport-sick-dying-children-n1047901

People are always speculating how low this administration can go. I think we may have found out. 
More - NYT:

LOS ANGELES — Maria Isabel Bueso was 7 years old when she came to the United States from Guatemala at the invitation of doctors who were conducting a clinical trial for the treatment of her rare, disfiguring genetic disease. The trial was short on participants, and thanks to her enrollment, it eventually led the Food and Drug Administration to approve a medication for the condition that has increased survival by more than a decade.

Now 24, Ms. Bueso, who had been told she likely would not live past adolescence, has participated in several medical studies. She has won awards for her advocacy on behalf of people with rare diseases, appearing before lawmakers in Washington and in Sacramento. Over the years, her parents have paid for the treatment that keeps her alive with private medical insurance.

But last week, Ms. Bueso received a letter from the United States government that told her she would face deportation if she did not leave the country within 33 days, an order described by her doctor, lawyer and mother as tantamount to a “death sentence.”

Without any public announcement, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services eliminated a “deferred action” program this month that had allowed immigrants like Ms. Bueso to avoid deportation while they or their relatives were undergoing lifesaving medical treatment. The agency said that it received 1,000 deferred-action applications related to medical issues each year.

The policy change is the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to revoke or modify procedures that have allowed certain immigrants to remain in the United States on humanitarian grounds. In addition to those with serious medical conditions, they included crime victims who have helped law enforcement with investigations and caretakers of sick children or relatives.

“I have been feeling super scared and overwhelmed,” said Ms. Bueso, whose lower body is paralyzed from the disease, an enzyme disorder that inhibits cells from processing sugars. “The treatment that I receive keeps me alive.”

...

In letters reviewed by The New York Times, Ms. Bueso, her family and other deferred action applicants were told that requests would be considered only from people who are in the military, and that the authorities would “commence removal proceedings” against those who did not leave the country.

Martin Lawler, Ms. Bueso’s lawyer in San Francisco, said he had been told “there is no appeal, and nobody has told us how to proceed.”

Among others who could be forced to leave the country are children being treated for sickle-cell anemia, cancer and other illnesses.

...

Every week for several years, Ms. Bueso has received intravenous infusions of the replacement enzyme that treats her disease, Mucopolysaccharidosis VI, or MPS-6, which causes dwarfism, clouded vision and spinal cord compression, among other abnormalities.

“Stopping this therapy will dramatically shorten her life span,” said Paul Harmatz, the pediatric gastroenterologist who was involved in the original trial and has been treating Ms. Bueso since 2003 at the U.C.S.F. Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland, Calif.

The clinical trial had struggled to find patients, and without Ms. Bueso’s participation, Dr. Harmatz said, it would not have taken place. The breakthrough that came from the trial has helped people with the disease live longer than 30 years, he said. Before the drug, they rarely survived past 20.

Across the country, doctors and immigration lawyers scrambled to understand the new policy and its consequences. In Miami, it meant possibly keeping an 8-year-old girl with nerve cancer from participating in an experimental treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Her father, who is in the country illegally, is the only parent available who can travel with her, said Tammy Fox-Isicoff, a Miami immigration lawyer who is representing the family.

Without deferred action, the man cannot legally drive or board an airplane from Miami to New York, where the girl must go each month for the treatment.

In a statement, Boston Medical Center, a research hospital in a city that is a hub for clinical trials and innovative treatments, said it was “deeply concerned” about the new policy and how it would affect its patients who are receiving treatment for “extremely serious medical conditions.”

“We oppose any actions that could prevent people from accessing the health care they need,” the hospital said.

Brent Renison, a lawyer who is representing an Indian woman who could be affected, said deferred action was “meant to allow for some discretion, to recognize cracks in the law that people fall into, and alleviate humanitarian situations and needless suffering.”

It has been 16 years since Ms. Bueso began receiving weekly infusions of the approved drug, Naglazyme. She has built a productive life despite the crippling disease. Last year, she graduated summa cum laude from California State University, East Bay, where she worked with the school to start a scholarship for students with rare diseases.

Her family lives in a middle-class neighborhood in Concord, Calif., in a house her parents bought and renovated to accommodate their daughter’s wheelchair. They did not expect to leave the country, having won permission to stay every time they applied for an extension.

When Mr. Lawler, the family’s lawyer, told them about the government’s decision last week, Ms. Bueso began to shake uncontrollably.

“We were crying with the nurses, doctors, everyone,” her mother, Karla Bueso, said. “Without her treatment, it’s like a death sentence. It has been hard to process.”

Neither the drug nor the medical care that she requires is available in Guatemala. Without the drug, her health is expected to quickly deteriorate. Her breathing could become belabored; she could suffer cardiac arrest and become susceptible to infections.

“We have watched her grow up and mature, and become a responsible young adult, a leader advocating nationally,” Dr. Harmatz said. “If you take it away, it will be a rapid return to her previous state. Death would be the outcome.”

 
I posted this 5 hours ago and still not a single Trump supporter has come into this thread, even though several of them have been in the forum since then, 

@GoBirds

Don’t Noona

@Widbil83

Anybody? Come on guys, explain how this is a good thing. 
I kinda think the trump 2020 thread is dead not because of the terrible board oppression of the truthtellers but because it's just gotten too damned hard.

 
The base of the Republican Party are not bad people. They’re the same decent, kind hearted folks they always were. They’re not racist. 

They’re just afraid. They see their way of life changing and being threatened and they’ve been manipulated and taken in by a bunch of wicked people on talk radio and now one in the White House. But that won’t last. 
I agree they aren't bad people but I think it will last. America has a cultural divide that I don't believe it can get past. That's why America needs a divorce, to many irreconcilable differences. 

 
She didn’t lie about that. She repeated a story she was told by somebody there- more than one person in fact. It was impossible to confirm so it may have been irresponsible for her and others to repeat it. But that doesn’t make it a lie. 
Wasn't that trope weeks ago?

 
She didn’t lie about that. She repeated a story she was told by somebody there- more than one person in fact. It was impossible to confirm so it may have been irresponsible for her and others to repeat it. But that doesn’t make it a lie. 
She knew exactly what she was doing and got the exact response she wanted.

 
She knew exactly what she was doing and got the exact response she wanted.
But the press got the story right. The press reported Cortez’s statement, it reported on conditions, and the only reason you know what you know about this is the press. Here the press is stating it has actual letters from ICE informing these families their deferments have been revoked. Basically Trump tells you the press lies so that you and other hard core followers don’t have to face a conflict in your values. Obviously you wouldn’t support such a thing but this very thing is happening.

 
There are about 30 articles which all report the same news: 

there is a single article which I was able to find that attempts to refute it, from Breitbart: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/immigration/2019/08/30/fact-check-no-donald-trump-did-not-decide-to-deport-kids-with-cancer/amp/

But if you bother to read this article beyond the headline, it doesn’t really refute the story. It first discusses and attempts to refute the news that Trump wanted to end automatic citizenship for children of military born in overseas bases (a completely different story.) it then notes that in the case of the sick children, the authority has been moved to ICE, an enforcement agency, without explaining how this contradicts anything- in fact it’s an important part of the story. And finally it complains that the AP story refers to the children as “immigrants” and not “illegal immigrants” as if that changes the facts. 
Well to be fair ICE wont even go into a church to grab somebody they know is there and has a court order to be deported and has been there for like two years. So i am actually quite skeptical this will lead to deportations. 

 
Well to be fair ICE wont even go into a church to grab somebody they know is there and has a court order to be deported and has been there for like two years. So i am actually quite skeptical this will lead to deportations. 
Did you read the NYT article? The woman who received the letter stating she has 33 days to leave the country before she is deported? I’m not sure she can rely on your skepticism to feel safer. 

 
Did you read the NYT article? The woman who received the letter stating she has 33 days to leave the country before she is deported? I’m not sure she can rely on your skepticism to feel safer. 
This isnt what it said at all.

It said they MAY issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings. Then a court would have to determine that they should be deported and issue the order. Then ICE would have to actually deport them. So I am incredibly skeptical since like I said they still wont deport a woman that has a court order(which means she has already gone through all of the steps) and they know exactly where she is because they don't want to deal with the bad optics of taking her from the front lawn of a church. 

 
This isnt what it said at all.

It said they MAY issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings. Then a court would have to determine that they should be deported and issue the order. Then ICE would have to actually deport them. So I am incredibly skeptical since like I said they still wont deport a woman that has a court order(which means she has already gone through all of the steps) and they know exactly where she is because they don't want to deal with the bad optics of taking her from the front lawn of a church. 
The voice of reason among the slanted.

 
This isnt what it said at all.

It said they MAY issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings. Then a court would have to determine that they should be deported and issue the order. Then ICE would have to actually deport them. So I am incredibly skeptical since like I said they still wont deport a woman that has a court order(which means she has already gone through all of the steps) and they know exactly where she is because they don't want to deal with the bad optics of taking her from the front lawn of a church. 
Quoting directly from the article: 

she would face deportation.if she did not leave the country within 33 days

Whats this “may issue a notice”? That’s not in the Times article that Saints linked- that’s your interpretation. And if I was this poor woman, I would not be reassured by parasaurolophus on the Internet telling me not to worry, they’ll never go through with it. Your mention of bad optics is meaningless. This administration is putting kids in cages; apparently they don’t care about bad optics. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top