- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Sue and settle fricks US immigration policy for 8 years
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:06 pm
LINK
quote:
A federal judge in California on Friday approved a court settlement that will prohibit federal U.S. border officials from reviving the Trump-era "zero tolerance" family separation policy for the next eight years.
Under the settlement between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration, the federal government will be barred from separating migrant families solely for the purposes of prosecuting the parents for entering the U.S. illegally. There are limited exceptions to the eight-year ban, such as when a parent poses a risk to their children.
This post was edited on 12/9/23 at 3:07 pm
6
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:22 pm to udtiger
Remain in Mexico is a much more important/effective policy. This one was more punitive than effective.
The problem is asylum, which is mandated by our international agreements.
We'd basically have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention to effectively do anything about asylum abuse.
The problem is asylum, which is mandated by our international agreements.
We'd basically have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention to effectively do anything about asylum abuse.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We'd basically have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention to effectively do anything about asylum abuse
That or state suicide?
Seems like an easy decision
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
How are people from other countries allowed to pass through Mexico to seek asylum? Shouldn’t asylum be at the first “safe” place they come to? Explain it to me like I’m 42
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
No. Asylum law requires oppressed to stay in first country they come where they are not persecuted. That means Mexico for the most part.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:28 pm to udtiger
Or regulating ports of entry, which Remain in Mexico does, which is why it's much more important than spitting up families who've already made it here.
Or we could just invest in Central America and Gain exponentially more benefits without the risk of economic migration being so alluring. Better them than China.
Or we could just invest in Central America and Gain exponentially more benefits without the risk of economic migration being so alluring. Better them than China.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:29 pm to Deplorableinohio
quote:
Asylum law requires oppressed to stay in first country they come where they are not persecuted
I don't think many countries rely on that interpretation including US courts.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:45 pm to udtiger
quote:
Under the settlement between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Biden administration
A future administration should not recognize this as binding in any way.
The Biden administration has no constitutional authority to obligate a future administration except through legislation (changing the law) or by treaty (which requires ratification by the Senate).
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:46 pm to udtiger
DNA testing to prove relation was also thrown out.
What a waste of voting GOPe, who for 30 years campaigned on fixing this.
What a waste of voting GOPe, who for 30 years campaigned on fixing this.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:49 pm to udtiger
If family separation is not allowed then it is imperative that those families not be allowed to enter the U.S. at all. The British government had the idea to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as a safe third country. Perhaps the U.S. Government could make a similar deal.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:50 pm to M. A. Ryland
ACLU may as well be part of the Biden administration. They are negotiating with themselves.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:50 pm to M. A. Ryland
quote:
A future administration should not recognize this as binding in any way.
I think we'll keep protecting the rule of law.
quote:
The Biden administration has no constitutional authority to obligate a future administration except through legislation
This is not true. It's going to lead to a court order.
You're arguing that administrations can ignore court orders.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Remain in Mexico is a much more important/effective policy. This one was more punitive than effective. The problem is asylum, which is mandated by our international agreements. We'd basically have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention to effectively do anything about asylum abuse.
Why do you do this? Nothing actually says we have to take people that are coming from all over the world.
In reality a lot of the past and present Central Americans should seek asylum in the nearest country. So like Mexico, which isn’t a poor country stacked up to all countries.
And we sure as hell shouldn’t be taking people from anywhere across the Atlantic or pacific.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 3:58 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Why do you do this? Nothing actually says we have to take people that are coming from all over the world.
If they claim asylum, we do, under the Geneva convention. Like I said, "We'd basically have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention to effectively do anything about asylum abuse."
quote:
In reality a lot of the past and present Central Americans should seek asylum in the nearest country. So like Mexico, which isn’t a poor country stacked up to all countries.
Like I said, "Remain in Mexico is a much more important/effective policy."
quote:
And we sure as hell shouldn’t be taking people from anywhere across the Atlantic or pacific.
Irrelevant
Posted on 12/9/23 at 4:10 pm to Deplorableinohio
quote:
It’s the law.
Cite me the binding cases that you're relying on to make that claim.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 4:15 pm to udtiger
quote:
Trump-era "zero tolerance" family separation policy for the next eight years.
Don't they know this started under Obama... lol
This post was edited on 12/9/23 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 12/9/23 at 4:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We'd basically have to withdraw from the Geneva Convention to effectively do anything about asylum abuse.
Who defines asylum? Because I don’t have a huge problem with actual asylum, which 99.9 percent of the “seekers” don’t qualify.
Your country being a shithole isn’t asylum.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 4:22 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Who defines asylum?
The Geneva Convention and courts interpreting our treaties.
quote:
Because I don’t have a huge problem with actual asylum, which 99.9 percent of the “seekers” don’t qualify.
Your country being a shithole isn’t asylum.
You're correct, but that's fraudulent asylum, which still involves due process to determine the fraud. That's the "asylum abuse" referenced in the stuff you quoted above.
Posted on 12/9/23 at 10:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Geneva Convention and courts interpreting our treaties.
There’s no way every country who signed it is enforcing it the same way. Our courts are just taking the most liberal interpretation possible.
We could definitely make major changes and still abide by the treaty.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News