Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

US pulls out of UNHRC

You are clearly not going to answer the question that has been put to you three times, probably because you have now googled it and realised that you were talking mince earlier when you claimed these places have only been opened this year.

The facility in the former Walmart in Brownsville was announced in January 2017 and opened in March 2017. It is the fourth such facility in Brownsville alone.

Closed Wal-Mart in Brownsville to Reopen as Shelter for Unaccompanied Minors

The rest of the waffle about accompanied vs unaccompanied is just waffle. Yes, there have been significantly more children separated from their families since the change in policy but there have been separations going on for years.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defau..._unaccompanied_alien_childrens_services_0.pdf

Most of the rest of what you wrote is also wrong but I am done dancing in circles with you for tonight, life is too short.
I've answered it for you three times - you just don't happen to like the answer, which for the third (possibly fourth or fifth) time is that this year is the first time it's been used to detain children separated from their parents because their parents crossed the border illegally.

That you have to pretend it's otherwise is rather sad, but no more than your pretence that separating children from their parents has ever happened before as routine or as deliberate policy. It hasn't, and pretending it has and only the degree has changed is not only an outright lie but pathetically weak - if you think it's acceptable at least have the guts to say so.
I live here within two hours of the border - You live on the other side of the world and have no first hand experience. You rely on vague terms you googled. One Buddy is a Border patrol agent and another is in an AZ militia.

Accompanied children, under certain circumstances have been separated for several years. It may have been less during parts of Obamas term, as he let them go essentially.

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review
As above - blurring the truth and coming out with "it may have been less" to try to excuse it is simply gutless.

I may not agree with those who think that the ends justify the means, but at least I can respect their honesty.

You don't need "first hand experience" to know right from wrong and punishing little children for their parents trying to get a better life for themselves and their kids is wrong and, whatever your politics, you should have the guts to say so instead of trying to excuse it by pretending it happened before. Gutless.

I don't know what the answer is to the world-wide problem of refugees and immigration and don't pretend to, but I know that taking kids away from their parents and putting them in detention camps, deliberately letting people drown in the Mediterranean, burning people out in Burma, or dumping them on PNG have to be the wrong answers.


(edited to change 'justify' to 'excuse' - neither of you had the guts to try to justify it)
 
Last edited:
Some people don't believe in conspiracies, but its curious the whole border story blew up, shortly after Trump was able to garner some positive publicity outside of the US, following the Korean thing.... Despite, the story been in existence for years. ODD That.
Except it hasn't been in existence for years ... just since the policy started in April.
Similarly, the migrant flows if they were based on events, then, there should be peaks and troughs. But, in the past 10-15 years, there has been a steady increase. ODD That.
Except the increase hasn't been "steady" at all and there have been peaks and troughs that even a child could relate directly to events.
 
[QUOTE="John G, post: 8635027, member: 88044"
I may not agree with those who think that the ends justify the means, but at least I can respect their honesty.

You don't need "first hand experience" to know right from wrong and punishing little children for their parents trying to get a better life for themselves and their kids is wrong and, whatever your politics, you should have the guts to say so instead of trying to excuse it by pretending it happened before. Gutless.

I don't know what the answer is to the world-wide problem of refugees and immigration and don't pretend to, but I know that taking kids away from their parents and putting them in detention camps, deliberately letting people drown in the Mediterranean, burning people out in Burma, or dumping them on PNG have to be the wrong answers.


(edited to change 'justify' to 'excuse' - neither of you had the guts to try to justify it)[/QUOTE]

You do realize their parents are also wrong for willingly trying to enter a country (mine) illegally. You also realize that parents have a responsibility to not use their children as pawns when they are committing said crime.... If the world is so concerned about this situation then Mexico should be held just as accountable for this dilemma. it is their country that allows these people to be trafficked to the United States. Oh wait sorry they want to dump their social and finical problems on the United States while reaping the reward from their own citizens who use the US as their cash cow.

Perhaps we can get a UN force on the Mexican side of the border to patrol and help stop this humanitarian crisis..... Granted I would not cross into Texas wearing a blue helmet, as it might attract some unwanted attention...
 
I've answered it for you three times - you just don't happen to like the answer, which for the third (possibly fourth or fifth) time is that this year is the first time it's been used to detain children separated from their parents because their parents crossed the border illegally.

That you have to pretend it's otherwise is rather sad, but no more than your pretence that separating children from their parents has ever happened before as routine or as deliberate policy. It hasn't, and pretending it has and only the degree has changed is not only an outright lie but pathetically weak - if you think it's acceptable at least have the guts to say so. As above - blurring the truth and coming out with "it may have been less" to try to excuse it is simply gutless.

I may not agree with those who think that the ends justify the means, but at least I can respect their honesty.

You don't need "first hand experience" to know right from wrong and punishing little children for their parents trying to get a better life for themselves and their kids is wrong and, whatever your politics, you should have the guts to say so instead of trying to excuse it by pretending it happened before. Gutless.

I don't know what the answer is to the world-wide problem of refugees and immigration and don't pretend to, but I know that taking kids away from their parents and putting them in detention camps, deliberately letting people drown in the Mediterranean, burning people out in Burma, or dumping them on PNG have to be the wrong answers.


(edited to change 'justify' to 'excuse' - neither of you had the guts to try to justify it)

Punishing little children? They are there days, until a relative can be found or they go into a temporary foster system. The parents broke the law - they are arrested. If the parents go to any border crossing and turn themselves in with an asylum claim - no arrest. Same goes for any of the 12 consulates in Mexico.

Its not hard. Kids aren't punished. Follow the laws.
 
You do realize their parents are also wrong for willingly trying to enter a country (mine) illegally. You also realize that parents have a responsibility to not use their children as pawns when they are committing said crime...
Of course - but that doesn't excuse what was being done. I haven't looked at every country, but according to the links (and nobody's contradicted it when I asked) no other country's had a similar policy so this isn't hypocritical or just 'Trump bashing' as some like to see it but genuine disgust.
If the world is so concerned about this situation then Mexico should be held just as accountable for this dilemma. it is their country that allows these people to be trafficked to the United States. Oh wait sorry they want to dump their social and finical problems on the United States while reaping the reward from their own citizens who use the US as their cash cow.
Sorry, I can't see that Mexico has any sort of parity of responsibility here. The US (Trump) could and did change the policy at a stroke; Mexico couldn't. There's no logic there at all, just the same flailing round for someone else to share the blame.
 
Last edited:
I
Of course - but that doesn't excuse what was being done. I haven't looked at every country, but accirding to the links (and nobody's contradicted it when I asked) no other country's had a similar policy so this isn't hypocritical or just 'Trump bashing' as some like to see it but genuine disgust. Sorry, I can't see that Mexico has any sort of parity of responsibility here. The US (Trump) could and did change the policy at a stroke; Mexico couldn't. There's no logic there at all, just the same flailing round for someone else to share the blame.

You do realize that the vast majority of illegals from Central America, have to journey through Mexico to take a crack at the border.
 
Punishing little children? They are there days, until a relative can be found or they go into a temporary foster system.
An average of 45 days according to your link, so months actually. If you look at the report below he's still there after 10 months, and the previous links show it can be as much as two years.
. If the parents go to any border crossing and turn themselves in with an asylum claim - no arrest.
That all sounds very fair, civilised and humane. Unfortunately it also appears to be not only far from the full picture but incorrect - doubly unfortunate since you were at pains to stress the importance of your 'being there' to know what was going on.

'An added problem may arise if you come to the southern U.S. border. You might be affected by the “zero-tolerance” policy for unlawful immigration that the Trump Administration instituted in early 2018. Reports have surfaced that asylum seekers who hadn’t even crossed the border yet, but merely approached an official point of entry, were placed into detention as supposedly unlawful migrants and separated from their children.'

The report in the TexasTribune is as sad in indictment of every aspect of an immigration / refugee policy gone wrong as you can get, on a par with all that was wrong with Windrush. The difference being that at least some of those responsible for Windrush accepted responsibility for it and apologised.

Applying at a border crossing also has two distinct drawbacks you forgot to mention. Firstly, while the application can't be considered and approved it can be rejected by just one member of the CBP if he decides, without investigating any further, that he doesn't find the application credible. No USCIS, no board, no immigration judge. Secondly there's the Catch 22 that you need a visa before you can apply - if you mention that you intend applying for asylum you're less likely to get a visa, but if you don't mention it then you can be deported for making a false representation in your visa application and banned from applying for a visa or asylum for five years. Catch 22.
Same goes for any of the 12 consulates in Mexico.
The USCIS / US government don't agree with you, as they state very clearly that this is not possible at any US Consulate and that's confirmed on numerous other websites which make it very clear that "U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry)."

Given your "first hand experience" it's a tad disappointing that you're so misinformed and making claims that are so clearly not just mis-leading but totally incorrect.
 
You do realize that the vast majority of illegals from Central America, have to journey through Mexico to take a crack at the border.
Yes, I did realize that, though I'm not sure what your point is.

The vast majority of illegals going to the UK have to journey through other parts of Europe to take a crack at the British border, but that doesn't mean that those countries are responsible for British immigration policy or, for example, the excesses and wrongs of Windrush.

It's not only irrational to try to share the blame for US policy by saying that Mexico should be "held just as accountable" as the US, but it's rather sad when people don't have the guts to admit they made a mistake.
 
An average of 45 days according to your link, so months actually. If you look at the report below he's still there after 10 months, and the previous links show it can be as much as two years. That all sounds very fair, civilised and humane. Unfortunately it also appears to be not only far from the full picture but incorrect - doubly unfortunate since you were at pains to stress the importance of your 'being there' to know what was going on.

'An added problem may arise if you come to the southern U.S. border. You might be affected by the “zero-tolerance” policy for unlawful immigration that the Trump Administration instituted in early 2018. Reports have surfaced that asylum seekers who hadn’t even crossed the border yet, but merely approached an official point of entry, were placed into detention as supposedly unlawful migrants and separated from their children.'

The report in the TexasTribune is as sad in indictment of every aspect of an immigration / refugee policy gone wrong as you can get, on a par with all that was wrong with Windrush. The difference being that at least some of those responsible for Windrush accepted responsibility for it and apologised.

Applying at a border crossing also has two distinct drawbacks you forgot to mention. Firstly, while the application can't be considered and approved it can be rejected by just one member of the CBP if he decides, without investigating any further, that he doesn't find the application credible. No USCIS, no board, no immigration judge. Secondly there's the Catch 22 that you need a visa before you can apply - if you mention that you intend applying for asylum you're less likely to get a visa, but if you don't mention it then you can be deported for making a false representation in your visa application and banned from applying for a visa or asylum for five years. Catch 22.
The USCIS / US government don't agree with you, as they state very clearly that this is not possible at any US Consulate and that's confirmed on numerous other websites which make it very clear that "U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry)."

Given your "first hand experience" it's a tad disappointing that you're so misinformed and making claims that are so clearly not just mis-leading but totally incorrect.
Detained for not crossing the border? Hahaha - give me a break. And Consulates can assist those who are going to claim asylum. It’s in your own link... it says they can’t process asylum cases - but refugees can.


Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?

Refugees: Asylum for Those Located Outside the U.S.
If you are a refugee, you may contact the American embassy for assistance in submitting an application for resettlement to the United States. They will assist you in completing your application and gathering your supporting documentation. They can also help arrange loans to pay for any relocation expenses

But hey - keep trying John.
 
Detained for not crossing the border? Hahaha - give me a break
Why should I give you a break? You're now not just being misleading but telling blatant porkies.
And Consulates can assist those who are going to claim asylum. It’s in your own link... it says they can’t process asylum cases - but refugees can.
Yes, they can "assist" them in preparing paperwork, etc, but what they can't do is what you claimed in your previous post, that "If the parents go to any border crossing and turn themselves in with an asylum claim - no arrest. Same goes for any of the 12 consulates in Mexico." They can't make an "asylum claim" at "any of the 12 consulates in Mexico" so it isn't the "same".

Being generous, you made a mistake and simply embellished what you thought was correct; being rather less generous you knew you were wrong and you simply lied, hoping your bluster about "first hand experience" would pay off (and, knowing some of the board buffoons posting here, it probably has).

Maybe you've been in the States too long, associating with the sadder types who refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong and have to find someone else to blame, preferably loudly. Thank God they're in a small if vocal and powerful minority.

Grow a set of balls and admit you made a mistake - once you've mastered that new experience you may even be able to recognise what's true and what's simply a lie, particularly when you're the one making it.
 
Last edited:
They can go to any border crossing as well.. they don’t have to cross the entire country of Mexico if they are valid Refugees. There is no asylum for domestic violence anymore..

What you can’t do is cross the border illegally as you will be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Top