Listen to children who’ve just been separated from their parents at the border

a reply to: Wardaddy454

You said this:

They do, at the start.

What did you mean by that?

a reply to: RowanBean

Under the Law , they are Also afforded a One Way Ticket back to where they came from .......

On multiple occasions, the Supreme Court has ruled that "any person" means non-citizens. Some of these SCOTUS decisions include:

Wong Wing v. United States (1896): "These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973): according to KQED, this decision "stated that non-citizens, regardless of legal status, are protected by the Constitution’s criminal charge-related amendments, including search and seizure, self-incrimination, freedom of expression and trial by jury."

Plyler v. Doe (1982): The Supreme Court ruled that non-citizen children must get a free K-12 education.

Zadvydas v. Davis* *(2001): SCOTUS ruled that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."

Boumediene v. Bush (2008): Regarding persons held in the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of "habeas corpus" to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

www.countable.us...

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Sublimecraft

And I'll continue to repeat the part of the 14th amendment so it will finally dawn on you.
"any person within its jurisdiction".
What does "any person" mean?

Maybe they should change it to "only U.S. citizens within its jurisdiction".

OMG

Yeah the whole world is US jurisdiction, right?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: RowanBean

Under the Law , they are Also afforded a One Way Ticket back to where they came from .......

Yep if they are caught. Children on the other hand...

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Sublimecraft

And I'll continue to repeat the part of the 14th amendment so it will finally dawn on you.
"any person within its jurisdiction".
What does "any person" mean?

Maybe they should change it to "only U.S. citizens within its jurisdiction".

OMG

Yeah the whole world is US jurisdiction, right?

Trump believes that.

a reply to: RowanBean

Would it?

You think the Cartels only make money from drugs now? Shoot, they own working mines down in Lazaro Cardenas. They've branched out. there will be any number of reasons to immigrate so long as the cartels exist, and its too late to hope ending the WoD will change it.

TBH, if there ever was a country for the US to interfere in politics/affairs, it should be the Mexican cartels.

a reply to: RowanBean

Abandon Children , Victims of Child Abuse , yes .

a reply to: Wardaddy454

What I know it wasn't this bad before the war on drugs and the CIA involvement.

originally posted by: RowanBean

On multiple occasions, the Supreme Court has ruled that "any person" means non-citizens. Some of these SCOTUS decisions include:

Wong Wing v. United States (1896): "These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973): according to KQED, this decision "stated that non-citizens, regardless of legal status, are protected by the Constitution’s criminal charge-related amendments, including search and seizure, self-incrimination, freedom of expression and trial by jury."

Plyler v. Doe (1982): The Supreme Court ruled that non-citizen children must get a free K-12 education.

Zadvydas v. Davis* *(2001): SCOTUS ruled that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."

Boumediene v. Bush (2008): Regarding persons held in the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of "habeas corpus" to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

www.countable.us...

Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status or are seeking asylum, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. In a 5-3 ruling Tuesday, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing, the court ruled that immigrants do not have the right to periodic bond hearings.

thehill.com...

Wanna keep pointing to the Supreme Court?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Wanna keep pointing to the Supreme Court?

If you want to.

a reply to: Willtell


Poor kids. DHS should have returned them to whence they came, immediately. Reunite them with the adults, and return them. Problem solved.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: Nyiah

Is that option even on the table with your ilk?

Seems like a trap.

Or maybe this issue was a trap for democrats, so they'll actually do something meaningful on immigration instead of #resisting.

How many times do I have to point out I'm Libertarian before the dunces on this site understand that much? YES, IT'S ON THE TABLE, IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Get your heads out of your collective butts and start hammering out a humane middle ground already, we keep waiting on you.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Sublimecraft

And I'll continue to repeat the part of the 14th amendment so it will finally dawn on you.
"any person within its jurisdiction".
What does "any person" mean?

Maybe they should change it to "only U.S. citizens within its jurisdiction".

OMG

Yeah the whole world is US jurisdiction, right?

Trump believes that.

So does the left.

Once on US soil they start to have some rights.

Shouldn't we just bomb the # out of their countries to give them someplace to start over?

Get rid of the bad guys for the good guys to go back and build a better life.

Need the Wall tho.

a reply to: RowanBean

But is has been bad regardless.

Every regime went in with a means to exploit the populace.

a reply to: Nyiah

Waiting on us? Who let DACA fall to the way side? Hint: #Resist!

a reply to: Prisoner60863

I'm fairly liberal, but what would have them do? Just let anyone in who presents (shows up) with a minor child?

The real question is: how many children have been separated from their parent/guardian after lawfully presenting themselves at a designated border crossing for sanctuary?

Don't make stuff up. Those numbers are currently impossible to know because every single "news" outlet is reporting both lawful presentation and illegal border crossings using the same lump numbers. I have no idea if that is how ICE reports them or not. It's not an easy Google.

If an adult crosses illegally, they will be detained. What should we do if they have children? let them go? Send them to Disneyland?

Before you get crazy: if they present at a lawful crossing and seem asylum, they should not be separated (if possible) as they have not violated any law (there is existing international law regarding lawful asylum seekers).

Even Republicans are rebelling against Trump barbaric acts against innocent children.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Prisoner60863

I'm fairly liberal, but what would have them do? Just let anyone in who presents (shows up) with a minor child?

The real question is: how many children have been separated from their parent/guardian after lawfully presenting themselves at a designated border crossing for sanctuary?

Don't make stuff up. Those numbers are currently impossible to know because every single "news" outlet is reporting both lawful presentation and illegal border crossings using the same lump numbers. I have no idea if that is how ICE reports them or not. It's not an easy Google.

If an adult crosses illegally, they will be detained. What should we do if they have children? let them go? Send them to Disneyland?

Before you get crazy: if they present at a lawful crossing and seem asylum, they should not be separated (if possible) as they have not violated any law (there is existing international law regarding lawful asylum seekers).

It's not a great situation, but we have to do something. I hate when people try to pull the Asylum card out after being caught being here illegally. Grinds my gears. "Help, I'm being oppressed".

So far I haven't heard of any good solutions that reduce the amount of people trying to enter illegally. What Obama did was basically say if you make it in, we don't hassle you. All that did was encourage more people to come, not by legal means either. The whole 2014 unaccompanied Minor Wave was due to such actions.

a reply to: pavil

Agreed. And, BTW, my liberal GF is super angry with me right now.

"Just house parents with their children until we work it out!"

Ok, so how do we determine paternity/maternity? How long will it take to construct coed "family" holding facilities or convert existing ones? What if a dad shows up at the border with three daughters and claims his wife was raped and killed by Honduran hit squads? Do we put him in with other mothers and children? What if he's lying? What if he's not?

Where are the damn numbers? How many children have been/are being separated from their parent(s) after lawfully presenting at a designated port of entry VS. how many are claiming asylum AFTER being caught inside our borders?

No one is asking that question. I can't find a single news article that breaks that down. I see "some" "might" have been separated after lawfully seeking asylum. What does "some" and "might" mean in this context? For me, "some" means "a fraction of," not a "majority" or even "a lot."

Honestly, I'd love nothing better than to lambast the Trump admin over this situation. I loathe multilevel marketers. But we don't even have journalists asking these questions. What does that tell you?

Because as a man with a journalism degree, it tells me the whole situation is political football and that sucks.