Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    13276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 2 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

    Too bad they were silent when this started 6 years ago, when the term "tender age" originated. Or when these kids were abused in these centers. Whatever sock you were using at the time was very silent over this national tragedy.

    They didnt do this before. They kept the families together or released them. The primary source of children for separate detention was actual unaccompanied children, you know, the kind actually contemplated by the laws on "unaccompanied minors". Also, you are an evil fuck too. 

  2. 56 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

    I believe the children are crying and are separated and are locked in a facility.  I dont believe they are strapped down for days and beaten without food and water.  I also believe this is the way these situations have been handled in the past.  Have you read the flores settlement?

    AGAIN, it doesn't require this. Nothing in the law requires this. You don't need to jail people for fucking misdemeanors. For fucks sake, do you think it is a violation of the law when the cops don't fucking arrest everyone caught speeding? Options that don't involve essentially permanently splitting up families:

    (1) Don't fucking arrest people;

    (2) Detain for minimal amount of time for processing (i.e., less than 1 day) and then arrange for ankle monitors to ensure attendance at hearing;

    (3) Detain for less than 20 days so that families can be kept together (i.e., get more judges to process things quickly)

    (4) Don't detain at all in a secure facility, but provide relief shelters with food, water, etc. where families can voluntarily stay together pending the results of hearing;

    (5) Even for those that you have to detain longer than 20 days, don't move the family to separate ends of the fucking country;

    (6) Some combination of all the above;

    Every single one of these options would be a legal and viable way to enforce the law. And none of them would require splitting up families for months or even permanently as the Trump administration has effectively done. So shut the fuck up you evil fuck stick.

    P.S. This goes to JBJ too. 

    • Like 1
  3. 14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Yes and no.   It would not be fair to assert that Trump has created the practice of drugging up hysterical migrant kids who have been separated from their parents.  But, while you are pointing out an accurate caveat to the story, I don't think it mitigates the outrage that should be directed at Trump on this particular basis.  Assuming the lawsuit has merit, it is entirely fair to be outraged at Trump for creating a new class of drugged migrant kids, where the government is both (1) responsible for the wrongful separation for evil reasons and (2) has the parents in hand such that they could make medical decisions for their kids, but is not involving them.   Even though this has been accomplished by throwing the kids into a pre-existing program of drugging migrant kids whose parents were unavailable for different reasons. 

    In other words, the outrage at Trump seems warranted to me regardless of the fine point of how long drugging has been part of the system that Trump is wrongfully throwing these kids into.   And, if Obama is somehow responsible for awful psychotropic drugging practices during his time, he deserves condemnation for that.   But it wouldn't excuse Trump or reduce the need to end the practice now. 

    I don't think his suggestion was that there shouldn't be outrage at Trump. In fact, it was the opposite. Be outraged at Trump for the terrible things has done and is doing. Also be outraged that some terrible things have happened in the past, and we need to make sure that past conduct isn't amplified by Trump's truly evil conduct. But let's not conflate everything together for the sake of political convenience. Let's fight with Trump with the truth, because the truth is that he is responsible for truly evil things. We don't need to dress it up anymore than that. 

    • Like 2
  4. 5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Nice backtrack.  So you at least admit that law requires children to be separated?

    Now to address your work-arounds:

    1) Detention is used to enforce border laws (and really any high crime for that matter), which is the entire point.  Previous administrations have had policies of non-enforcement or immediate release in spite of what the law requires.

    2) There are still bond hearings in immigration court.  I don't get your point unless it is a restatement of number 1.

    3) New Flores turned on keeping families together not being an acceptable excuse to violate the previous Flores.  Calling it the "specific nature of the facilities" is a disingenuous attempt to obfuscate that.  "The "specific nature of the facilities" was to allow for family detention.

     

    Trump is following the laws closer than any other administration.  You just don't like what the law is. 

    I agree. The law is stupid.

    Our legal immigration is so slow and restrictive that it incentivizes people to make specious asylum claims.  Then, we can't process the volume of asylum claims, so they illegally cross.  Then, they get arrested and separated from their children because of the unintended consequences of a human trafficking law.  When we address that, Flores v Lynch is especially dumb because it is a lose-lose.  Bad for families/children and bad for enforcement.

    Its like Mr. Bumble said, "If that's the law, the law is an ass."

    I am not back tracking. The law doesnt require separation of the familes. That is a policy choice in enforcement of the laws. There is no provision so that says everyone must be detained. Certain folks may be detained in certain circumstances (e.g., flight risk). However, as pointed out, there are other ways to handle that, like ankle monitors. Like most laws, there is a ton of room for discretion by both the prosectors and the courts. Lawyers recognize that. Judges recognize that. I am sorry that you cannot. 

  5. 12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Do you always call people on the internet ugly names?  Does it fulfill you in some way?  If it makes you feel better that’s ok I guess.  I said multiple times I don’t agree with Trump’s handling of this, but you’re still so angry with me. 

    I have been very clear. These actions are evil. Supporting, condoning, or deflecting from the evil of these actions is evil. I will not soften my stance to make someone else more comfortable. If you are not evil, do not act evil. The only option when confronted with evil is to oppose it. Anything else is itself an act of evil. 

    • Like 4
  6. 2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

    100% this.  Assassinations have never helped the cause of democracy.  They pretty much always make things worse.

    Probably. But there may be a moment of cathartic relief prior to the realization of how horrible asassination is, both as an act and in its effect on our democracy. 

  7. 11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Let me break it down for you:

    1) For non-Mexican/Canadian children along the border, DHS has 3 days to turn them over to HHS. HHS places them in an ORR shelter, and they are automatically placed in removal proceedings.

    2) We used to have 4 family detention centers that jointly operated as ORR shelters and DHS detainment, so that families could be kept together.  In 2016 (Flores v Lynch), these were restricted for violating Flores v Reno (1997).

    What else is there to explain?

    That any law requires (1) the detention of anyone crossing the border in a secure facility, (2) that release prior to trial is somehow incompatible with the law (it is in fact a common practice for pretty much any crime), and (3) that the fact that some family detention were run in unlawful fashion means that no such facility can be operated.

    1 and 2 are 100% false. 3 is of questionable validity as the second flores case turned on the nature of the specific facilities and how they were utilized. Again, you are full of shit. 

  8. 5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    I think it’s more of a tribal phonemon.  Your guy isn’t pulling the strings, everything is a travesty.  

     

    I don’t see where anything I wrote makes me an evil person. I lead a pretty quiet, simple existence.  Nothing too evil that I’m aware of. 

    You know what, you’re right.  Most people are not educated on the depth of our country’s misadventures in the past.  They are just easily whipped into a frenzy over shit that other administrations have done in the past to some extent.  The people with no principles are the politicians and media outlets that know better and fan the flames to try and achieve what they want.  

     

    I am a pretty laid back guy.  Known to have a good time. We’d probablu get along fine. 

    Your participation in this thread is proof that you are evil. Deal with it. It is who you are.

    • Like 1
  9. 15 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Talking tough about immigration bought him something politically, he’s just following through on it in a way that a lot of people, myself included, think is too harsh. I’m just laughing at all the outrage people are flinging around about this when this has been happening.  Same thing when people talk about bombing civilians in Yemen or the first amendment and journalism being under attack. This shit has been going on before Trump.  Im supposed to think that the majority of people on the left now have principles and have always cared?  GTFOH. 

    Again, you are an evil person. 

  10. 5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    I think it's considered snark.

    Regardless, for a complaint to give him protection, it has to constitute protected activity under Title VII.  If Patricio Swayze is a minority, he can complain of harassment on his own behalf.  But it's also protected activity if he complains of harassment on behalf of another.  So if you see a coworker harassing another coworker on the basis of race/sex/national origin/etc and complain about it, that's protected activity and the employer can't take action against you in retaliation.  

    And speaking from the defense side, those retaliation claims suck, because they're so damned believable.  I mean, a lot of people honestly don't think that race discrimination happens.  They're wrong, but that's what a lot of potential jurors think.  

    But an accusation that "they fired me because I essentially called them racists"--uh, yeah, a lot of people will believe that an employer would do that (even though it's really, really illegal).  I hate those cases.

    Agreed. I have only handled one retaliation case, and they aint easy. 

  11. 2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    What about the ones over-medicated during Trump's administration you boot-licking, collaborating piece of shit?

    Hey, I'm not sure you noticed (I have), that Anastasis tone changed today. He's been quite critical of what is happening. He had a good point here, it was misleading journalism. 

  12. 7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    Can I have the name of your employer?  I normally do defense work, but damn--some days you just see an opportunity to retire off a good plaintiff's case.

    Is this considered solicitation? Anyway, I'm down to help. And whistle blowers have some protection, so they usually can't just fire you. 

  13. 15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I don't disagree, but maybe we shouldn't call the kids overmedicated during the Obama administration Trump's zombie army.  I mean, just maybe.  Trump gets a hold of that article, and it might make his top 10 fake news stories awards list for the year.  Oh, and once again, fuck twitter for political discourse.  

    Agreed on all counts. It was poor journalism. 

  14. 19 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Both sides.  And so on.  The liberal media has found something ugly to latch onto that's happened before and they're running with it. Smart politics.  

    From correspondent for noted conservative org, the Young Turks. 

    I expect little to no acknowledgement of this, per Surly protocol.  

    Our policing of our borders sucked before and many of the people involved sucked as well. But, from the top level, at least the goal wasn't expressly to inflict pain and suffering. Read the accounts you posted. Many of them ultimately result in reunification a short time later. Some of them represent decisions, perhaps incorrect ones, to separate parents from children based on a belief that the parents would endanger the children. I don't like any of these things. They disturb me greatly and always have. But, I also recognize that those incidents were largely incidental results of a larger bureaucratic system that needed a way to process people in some orderly fashion. Unfortunately, that system was forced to implement bad law and at least some of the individuals involved chose to do so in cruel ways.

    There, I've acknowledged your post and that our previous handling of immigration sucked too. Now it is your turn to acknowledge that Trump's policies are different. Before, there was no top-down order that cruelty be inflicted.  Trump insisted on cruelty and pain, and did so because he thought it bought him something politically. Of course, you'll never recognize that because you are a disgusting human being. 

    • Like 5
  15. 1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

    You know--you honestly need to go to HR with this.  Otherwise that guy is going to cost the company some serious cash one day.

    Yeah, I mean, he should be fired. Immediately. I would also fire the clients if I were the other poster. But that is me. 

  16. 8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

     

     

    Some of the fillings are here. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4525292-420-2-Exhibit-Vol-2-Exs-21-30-Pages-109-73.html  Appears all the cases predate the current separation issue, some/most of the kids appear to have entered as unaccompanied minors, and most were diagnosed with serious mental illness (psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, etc.).  Some appear to have been transferred to the facility from psych hospitals. Appears a good amount of the records are partially sealed, so hard to piece together a definitive picture.  Some of the medication regimens are pretty fucking full blown. Antipsychotic polypharmacy, benzo, mood stabilizer, SSRI cocktails.  There are consultation notes where the conclusion is "overmedicated, taper off drugs and re-evaluate". Definitely some clear signals of overmedication and further chart reviews and investigation definitely warranted.

     

    Of course, as I was reviewing the clinical notes in that filing, the most striking thing that occurred to me was that most of the clinical notes and case summaries are from 2016 [/don'tbutobamamebro]. 

     

    Good job Reveal

    That is terrible. They've managed to combine two of the things we are historically the worst at: treatment of immigrants and treatment of the mentally ill. It should not be tolerated. But, there is a difference between neglect and malice. Trump's policies are born of malice. This case seems to be one born of bureaucratic and medical neglect. Neither is acceptable, but one is morally worse.  

  17. 1 hour ago, JBJ said:

    Why willing lie when it's easily verified that I did?

    I'm not lying, you are. You have identified one statutory provision that doesn't say anything about what you claim. You can't explain at all how it supports your position. And that is because it does not. 

  18. 1 minute ago, scottsins said:

    Lol at “only executive solution”.  Who the fuck told you that was the case?

    Despite multiple opportunities, he has failed to identify any law that requires family separation. He is evil, just like everyone else who supports, tolerates, or deflects from the evil of this policy. 

    • Fuck You 1
  19. 1 minute ago, JBJ said:

    Like others have already pointed out.  This EO will probably be challenged and defeated.  The only executive solution is to not enforce border crossings.

    Or, you know, not take longer than 20 days to process these folks? Or not lock them up at all? Or place them in non-secure shelters (i.e., not jails). Tons of options. It isn't a binary choice of don't enforce the border and separate families. 

×
×
  • Create New...