US pulls out of UNHRC

Not sure what you mean by "this", or what I've left unanswered, but the second link gives a breakdown and answers most questions.

In summary:

The 'cages' under the CBP where illegal refugees can be held for up to three days have been going for over a couple of decades,

... the Flores Supreme Court judgement about detention was 1997, although the case dates to 1985,

... the amendment to Flores limiting child detention to 20 days was 2015,

... the separation of children from families at the CBP point onwards dates from the end of last year, but was policy for the last few months.

The Washington Post has a good fact checker, albeit arguably a cherry-picked one.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
Many of them have traveled a considerable distance before they meet the organisations that hand them a blanket. It's 2000 miles from Ethiopia to Libya, even further from Somalia.
So a relative, or a local headman/village elder or the government, EVER meets an NGO, UN agency, go on courses, nod and a wink...

If by Magic, some humble Ethiopian wakes up one day, hungry without a pot to pee in and just gets up and leave his village, leaving behind his extended family. Then covers 2000 miles, on a bag of sand and some friendly Bedouin who owns a truck and provides free juice, before arriving on the shores of the med, or US border.

Then, if by magic can pay for the crossing, before they arrive at the UNHCR Blanket giver in pantellaria/Greece or whatever.

Are you that naïve, the answer seems to be yes, something is supporting the increase in flow and its not the gangmasters, they are simply exploiting the situation.
 
There are new ones to cope with the increase in numbers the new policy has brought but most of the child holding centers have existed since the late 90's. There are some that are older than that but the late 90's was when the big spike in unaccompanied kids happened which meant lots of new ones opened.

Rare Look Inside A Child Migrant Shelter In El Cajon Amid Family Separation Outcry
Sorry, but that's not entirely correct. There were plenty of family and child holding centres in the late 90's, as you say, but all but one (in Berks County, Pennsylvania) were closed following the controversy over the T. Don Hutto facility in Texas which was closed after a lawsuit in 2009.

The link above gives details.
 
Sorry, but that's not entirely correct. There were plenty of family and child holding centres in the late 90's, as you say, but all but one (in Berks County, Pennsylvania) were closed following the controversy over the T. Don Hutto facility in Texas which was closed after a lawsuit in 2009.

The link above gives details.
You should definitely get in touch with the USG and give them the benefit of your wisdom then. Because the HHS believe they operate 'a network of shelters' and have done since the problem was passed to them in 2003.

Unaccompanied Alien Children
 
Lots of wars in the past, but the population hunkered down over a border, under tarp. They didn't go on epic odyssey adventures and particularly a younger demographic; leaving there extended families behind.

Don't give me the waffle about transport links, that is an aid, but not the reason why they decided to up sticks. Could it be possible, that lots of people have just decided to get on a bus and come to America or western Europe because someone is selling the idea to them ??

Could those idea sellers be the very organisations they meet on the border, who hand them a blanket ? the media, pushing our virtue, makes it sound realistic and the traffickers pick up the logistics
.


My bold.. some charities are indeed giving information out to would be chancers , sorry refugees, especially people like "no borders" and this outfit, see this The asylum process made simple - Asylum Aid
snip "Asylum Aid caseworkers give the right advice and support when people like Nina have nobody to turn to. Please donate today so that vulnerable people are #NeverAlone when their lives are in danger and they need our protection."

Also you will note that many of these so called refugees have mobiles which they use to send back all the "good news" on how to beat/play the system & get loads of free stuff thus encouraging the folks back home to join the rush.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
My bold.. some charities are indeed giving information out to would be chancers , sorry refugees, especially people like "no borders" and this outfit, see this The asylum process made simple - Asylum Aid
snip "Asylum Aid caseworkers give the right advice and support when people like Nina have nobody to turn to. Please donate today so that vulnerable people are #NeverAlone when their lives are in danger and they need our protection."

Also you will note that many of these so called refugees have mobiles which they use to send back all the "good news" on how to beat/play the system & get loads of free stuff thus encouraging the folks back home to join the rush.
Its my speculation, that the NGOs are the point of the spear, wielding that spear, is a tacit agreement between developing national governments and the UN. With the UNHCR, waiting at the end of the line to give them a final helping hand.

But the expansion of human rights, is the catalyst which opens the door wider, if you oppose the relocation.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
I was fairly jaw-dropped when I did the 'windshield tour' of Fort Bragg with my then 1 star, shortly before 9-11. Never seen so many vanilla C-130's in one place.

The point made by the base commander that they could accommodate and airlift the entire Airborne Division within 24 hours was staggering. No, we don't have that kind of capability.

But arguably, we don't need it.

The fact that the British Army has been hollowed out by successive arrseholes in HMG is now well-established.

But any nation which disposes of four SSBN's is hardly ' disarmed'
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
I was fairly jaw-dropped when I did the 'windshield tour' of Fort Bragg with my then 1 star, shortly before 9-11. Never seen so many vanilla C-130's in one place.

The point made by the base commander that they could accommodate and airlift the entire Airborne Division within 24 hours was staggering. No, we don't have that kind of capability.

But arguably, we don't need it.

The fact that the British Army has been hollowed out by successive arrseholes in HMG is now well-established.

But any nation which disposes of four SSBN's is hardly ' disarmed'
Scorched earth as a defence policy is taking the idea of total defence, to a logical conclusion.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Well the Russians should know - it played a major part in two historical campaigns which ended in victory for the Rodina.

I'm not proposing an SSBN is the solution to an anti terrorist COIN campaign. But we are not (quite) disarmed, much as Jeremy Corbyn and his team of reachback loons would like us to be.

The failure of the British Army in two successive counter-insurgency ops recently is largely down to resourcing.

The Brown government lied consistently about the proportion of GDP that was going to Defence at the time. Not much has changed.
 
What you claimed, quoting @jim30, was that 'separating children and putting them into prison camps' has been happening since 1997:
(separating children and putting them into prison camps) ... has been happening since 1997, but only now, since Trump became president, is it an issue.
That's completely untrue, as your link explains at length and in depth - no offence, but that's an outright lie and your link, far from supporting it, exposes it as a lie!

The original judgement in 1997 was only about unaccompanied minors, so that they would be released into the care of a relative when there were no parents there - Flores was on her own and 15; there were no parents there for her to be separated from! It never applied to accompanied minors so it had nothing to do with "separating children".

In 2015 the Ninth Circuit extended it to include accompanied minors, with the proviso that they had to be released after 20 days and kept in the "least restrictive conditions" possible, with their parents if at all possible ((not possible if, for example, their parents had been charged with a criminal offence).

Far from saying they were to be "put into prison camps" and "separating children" it limited the time accompanied children could be held to a maximum of 20 days in the least restrictive conditions and stipulated that, as far as possible, they were not to be separated from their parents.

That's the complete and polar opposite of what you claimed and it's all in your link, FFS!

Being generous, I can only think that you weren't deliberately trying to mislead people here but simply hadn't read beyond your link's title.

The only thing which is unclear is what happens to the parents after the 20 days when the children have to be released; under Obama, according to your link and the ones I gave, the entire family were usually released. Under Trump it may be a different case.
 
Last edited:

Pob02

LE
Book Reviewer
What you claimed, quoting @jim30, was that 'separating children and putting them into prison camps' has been happening since 1997:
[QUOTE="bill121koln, post: 8633618, member: 42882"(separating children and putting them into prison camps) ... has been happening since 1997, but only now, since Trump became president, is it an issue.
That's completely untrue, as your link explains at length and in depth - no offence, but that's an outright lie and your link, far from supporting it, exposes it as a lie!

The original judgement in 1997 was only about unaccompanied minors, so that they would be released into the care of a relative when there were no parents there - Flores was on her own and 15; there were no parents there for her to be separated from! It never applied to accompanied minors so it had nothing to do with "separating children".

In 2015 the Ninth Circuit extended it to include accompanied minors, with the proviso that they had to be released after 20 days and kept in the "least restrictive conditions" possible, with their parents if at all possible ((not possible if, for example, their parents had been charged with a criminal offence).

Far from saying they were to be "put into prison camps" and "separating children" it limited the time accompanied children could be held to a maximum of 20 days in the least restrictive conditions and stipulated that, as far as possible, they were not to be separated from their parents.

That's the complete and polar opposite of what you claimed and it's all in your link, FFS!

Being generous, I can only think that you weren't deliberately trying to mislead people here but simply hadn't read beyond your link's title.

The only thing which is unclear is what happens to the parents after the 20 days when the children have to be released; under Obama, according to your link and the ones I gave, the entire family were usually released. Under Trump it may be a different case.[/QUOTE]

The World has gone mad! I am agreeing wholeheartedly with John G.

Damn you Trump!
 
You should definitely get in touch with the USG and give them the benefit of your wisdom then. Because the HHS believe they operate 'a network of shelters' and have done since the problem was passed to them in 2003.

Unaccompanied Alien Children
We're talking about two totally different things.

I'm talking about detention centres run by the ORR for accompanied or unaccompanied children and families, as that's what's being discussed and what's controversial.

You're talking about "a network of shelters" run by the HHS for unaccompanied refugee children after they've been released from detention by the ORR, after their maximum of 20 days in detention is up and until they can be deported / family found / adopted / fostered, etc. I've no idea why as it's not being discussed and not controversial.

Maybe you should read your own link to see who it refers to - even the title in the link is a pretty big clue!
 
Last edited:
Goalposts deftly moved after prolonged bout of googling.
Even if we are only talking about ORR run facilities your contention that they only opened this year is still wrong. Even the one you used as an example earlier has been open longer than that.
 
Really?

Do you have any evidence for that?

... and could you explain where exactly the children were held, since none of the current child detention centres existed before this year?
Thats not true. Did you make that up?
 
My bold.. some charities are indeed giving information out to would be chancers , sorry refugees, especially people like "no borders" and this outfit, see this The asylum process made simple - Asylum Aid
snip "Asylum Aid caseworkers give the right advice and support when people like Nina have nobody to turn to. Please donate today so that vulnerable people are #NeverAlone when their lives are in danger and they need our protection."

Also you will note that many of these so called refugees have mobiles which they use to send back all the "good news" on how to beat/play the system & get loads of free stuff thus encouraging the folks back home to join the rush.
Agreed - it's all about communication.

The idea that it's all a big conspiracy co-ordinated by the 'rogue' developing nations at the UN to bring about the end of western civilisation is a little bit ... well ... fanciful.
 
Even if we are only talking about ORR run facilities your contention that they only opened this year is still wrong. Even the one you used as an example earlier has been open longer than that.
No goalposts moved by anyone - you were clearly talking about something nobody else was, not just me. The shelters simply aren't detention facilities as no-one's detained.

... and the one I used as an example earlier was the family center at Berks County, Pennsylvania, not solely a child detention centre unlike the present crop such as the converted Walmart in Brownsville, Texas.

Thats not true. Did you make that up?
No, I got it from reading the links here including those posted by others, such as @LEGZ30 (sorry, Legz!), all of which say the same thing.

If you can name any child detention centre now open that was open previously then feel free to do so, with a link, otherwise it's becoming very clear just who's making things up here.

(edit: those links could all be wrong and it could all be 'fake news', of course)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top