Unconstitutional or not? Why?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    After declaring the surge of Central American migrants crossing the border a humanitarian crisis, the Obama administration has shifted sharply to a strategy of deterrence, moving families to isolated facilities and placing them on a fast track for deportation to send a blunt message back home that those caught entering illegally will not be permitted to stay.


    []


    Until recently, most families were released to remain in the United States while their deportation cases moved slowly through the courts. But that policy fueled rumors reaching Central America that if parents arrived with young children, they would be given permits to stay. To stop such talk, officials said, they are moving swiftly to expand family detention.


    “Our borders are not open to illegal immigration,” said the Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, emphasizing his point when the Karnes City center started up last week.


    The migrants in Artesia were apprehended in South Texas, then moved more than 700 miles to the hastily arranged barracks behind the walls of a law enforcement training campus. Homeland Security officials said the plan is for them to be held for no more than 10 days before being sent on flights back home.


    []


    But the administration’s plan has been complicated by the assertions of many migrants who say they are frightened of being sent back into deadly gang violence, setting off required reviews to determine if they have valid asylum claims. Some migrants have refused to sign travel documents required for deportations. At least two women and their children in Artesia were taken off deportation flights on the tarmac after they insisted they would face harm at home, according to legal advocates who visited the center.


    “They told me I was certain to be deported, but I don’t want to go back there,” Katy Serrano, 22, a Salvadoran mother with a 15-month-old, said in a hurried cellphone interview from the detention center, where telephone communications are limited. “All my family is here, and back there is only a gang that said they would hurt my son.”


    At the end of July, 283 women and 344 minors were in Artesia, including dozens of infants and toddlers, almost all from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The administration is making it difficult for migrants to press asylum claims and is denying bond to anyone, including children, who has qualified legally for release, according to lawyers and social workers.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/us/seeking-to-stop-migrants-from-risking-trip-us-speeds-the-path-to-deportation-for-families.html


     


     


    The main potential constitutional objection would seem to be violations of due process if a proper evidence-based judicial determination isn't made after a fair and meaningful opportunity for hearing. But then, I suspect I could accurately predict who might or might not make such an objection...  


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    as far as O i dont see a constituional issue -


            charge him with incompetence and stuffing the issue away,  but nothing un constitutional


     


     


    As far as the people coming in - it is all statatory -


             and i believe that Congress has wide disgression in this area


     


    As Lincoln? said - " The Constitution is not a suicide pact"


               But we sure are working at it

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    If you don't have to be a citizen of the US to received rights granted to US citizens then I guess it's unconstitutional. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    If you don't have to be a citizen of the US to received rights granted to US citizens then I guess it's unconstitutional. 





    Well, I'm not an immigration lawyer, so I really don't know that much about the area. What I do know leads me to an educated guess that while one does not necessarily need a full trial, one needs a "fair hearing" that includes a "meaningful opportunity to be heard"; that a fair judicial determination that the person is not a US citizen must be made before deportation.


    Either I read too quickly, or the article did not mention specifically what goes on at these fast-track deportation centers.


     


     


    Overall, I'm actually more of an opponent to illegal immigration than many other posters here would guess. We cannot afford to be the world's host any more than its policeman. I just don't think that the policies being suggested by most anti-illegal-immigration politicians would have a meaningful impact on the problem.


     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    If someone shows up at the border without any paperwork, I think they can claim they are from some non-contiguous country and face harm and are then due a hearing. So that means that anyone can do that even if they are from Mexico or Canada and be allowed to stay pending the hearing. 

    In the meantime, I would expect the person could be detained and shipped anywhere as part of detention until the hearing, right?

    Isn't it a matter of the law, not the constitution? And if Obama can change ACA without Congress why can't he just use his pen and phone to ship these people out without a hearing?

    The Republicans should impeach him for deporting these illegals without a hearing and for his unilateral changes in ACA. LOL!

    Republicans really should have the donkey as a symbol. Complete a55e5, they have let Obama run over them like a steam roller with no resistance

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    "Our borders are not open to illegal immigration"

    There are 12 million reasons to believe this statement is among the most buffoonish ever made...

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    No doubt there are a few who really do fear for their lives, but the reality is that the illegals were told what to say....and they all say the same thing.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    Tough question. I tend to think the same way as 46&2 in that I guess it is unconstitutional if you don't have to be a US citizen to be protected under the constitution.

    On the other hand..I don't see what else the government can do at this point...and this sounds like the best solution to a growing problem. I can only hope the "fast track" process is weeding out people who are truly in danger should they go back.

     

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tough question. I tend to think the same way as 46&2 in that I guess it is unconstitutional if you don't have to be a US citizen to be protected under the constitution.

    On the other hand..I don't see what else the government can do at this point...and this sounds like the best solution to a growing problem. I can only hope the "fast track" process is weeding out people who are truly in danger should they go back.

     

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem is everyone is going to start saying they are in danger if they know it will keep them here. Glad I don't have to deal with this issue....it ain't an easy one that's for sure

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, maybe not.  If said person comes from El Salvador, where they are under threat, and are now residing in Mexico, by virtue of traveling thru, they are. No longer under the threat they claim, right?

    so, by what legal or moral justification are they allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border for a problem in El Salvador?  The threat has been neutralized once they set foot in Mexico.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    Why does the fact that they were once illegally in Mexico have anything to do with whether or not they are threatened in El Salvador and therefore deserve asylum, OR with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tough question. I tend to think the same way as 46&2 in that I guess it is unconstitutional if you don't have to be a US citizen to be protected under the constitution.

    On the other hand..I don't see what else the government can do at this point...and this sounds like the best solution to a growing problem. I can only hope the "fast track" process is weeding out people who are truly in danger should they go back.

     

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

    [/QUOTE]

    The problem is everyone is going to start saying they are in danger if they know it will keep them here. Glad I don't have to deal with this issue....it ain't an easy one that's for sure

    [/QUOTE]


    I know..which is awful. I could not imagine lying about something like that but I guess if one is desperate they can justify it in their minds.

    I agree completely. It's really easy for us to criticize...but imagine being the one who has to decide who is telling the truth and who is not? ...and what if you choose wrong. Not easy indeed...

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, maybe not.  If said person comes from El Salvador, where they are under threat, and are now residing in Mexico, by virtue of traveling thru, they are. No longer under the threat they claim, right?

    so, by what legal or moral justification are they allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border for a problem in El Salvador?  The threat has been neutralized once they set foot in Mexico.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry but that argument just doesn't make logical sense. We don't border El Salvador...right? Last time I checked anyone trying to get through to the US for asylum would have to cross through Mexico..right? Unless Mexico is going to offer them asylum..? Is that what you are suggesting?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:


    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .





    I have researched this Act, the prior Acts as well as a 2013 Act.  


    Here is a summary of what this Act and the other Acts mean.  It is a lot easier to understand than the actual texts of the Acts.


     


     


     


     


    Introduction


    Summary of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Reauthorizations


     


     


     


    RELEVANT AUTHORIZATION STATUTES

    Summary of the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act (TVPA) and Reauthorizations

    Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA 2000)



    In the beginning of the 21st century, at least 700,000 people were reported as victims of international trafficking each year, 14,500–17,500 of which are women and children who are trafficked specifically into the United States. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates there are 20.9 million victims of forced labor, with other estimates using non-governmental sources of information estimating that even larger numbers face modern-day slavery in all its forms.2


    In order to combat the growing issue of trafficking in persons, members of the international community came together and concluded a new protocol to the Transnational Crime Commission that banned trafficking, resulting in the Palermo Protocol, which the U.S. Government helped develop and support. During this process and ultimately to provide for both implementation of the Protocol and to fill gaps in U.S. law, Congress passed the bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and it was signed by President Clinton on October 28, 2000 (Public Law 106-386). The issue of trafficking in persons included those trafficked into the sex trade, slavery, and forced labor. The TVPA 2000 was created to, “ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.”3 In particular, there were three main components of the TVPA, commonly called the three P’s:


    PROTECTION: The TVPA increased the U.S. Government’s efforts to protect trafficked foreign national victims including, but not limited to:


    Victims of trafficking, many of whom were previously ineligible for government assistance, were provided assistance; and


    A non-immigrant status for victims of trafficking if they cooperated in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers (T-Visas, as well as providing other mechanisms to ensure the continued presence of victims to assist in such investigations and prosecutions).


    PROSECUTION: The TVPA authorized the U.S. Government to strengthen efforts to prosecute traffickers including, but not limited to:


    Creating a series of new crimes on trafficking, forced labor, and document servitude that supplemented existing limited crimes related to slavery and involuntary servitude; and


    Recognizing that modern-day slavery takes place in the context of fraud and coercion, as well as force, and is based on new clear definitions for both trafficking into sexual exploitation and labor exploitation: Sex trafficking was defined as, “a commercial sex act that is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age.”4 Labor trafficking was defined as, “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.”5


    PREVENTION: The TVPA allowed for increased prevention measures including, but not limited to:


    Authorizing the U.S. Government to assist foreign countries with their efforts to combat trafficking, as well as address trafficking within the United States, including through research and awareness-raising; and


    Providing foreign countries with assistance in drafting laws to prosecute trafficking, creating programs for trafficking victims, and assistance with implementing effective means of investigation.


    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton later identified a fourth P, “partnership,” in 2009 to serve as a, “pathway to progress in the effort against modern-day slavery.”6


    Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPRA 2003)


     


    Congress re-authorized the TVPA in 2003 (herein, TVPRA 2003) (P.L.108-193). Despite significant progress to combat and prosecute trafficking in persons, additional assistance and research was still needed. Moreover, corruption was still evident among some foreign law enforcement authorities that undermined any international effort to combat this issue.7 Thus, TVPRA 2003 added provisions to expand its reach, which included, but were not limited to, the following responsibilities:


    Allowed for materials to be disseminated, which alert travelers that sex tourism is illegal;


    Created a new civil action that allowed trafficked victims to sue their traffickers in federal district court; and


    Required the Attorney General to report annually on trafficking efforts.


    Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA 2005)


    As awareness about the issue of human trafficking grew, the United States began to recognize that human trafficking impacted not just foreign national victims of human trafficking but United States Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents. Congress reauthorized the TVPRA in 2005 (herein, “TVPRA 2005”) (P.L.109-164).8 The TVPRA 2005 added additional measures in particular to protect U.S. citizen survivors. These included, but were not limited to:


    Grant programs to assist state and local law enforcement efforts in combating trafficking in persons and to expand victim assistance programs to U.S. citizens or resident aliens subjected to trafficking;9


    Programs to create comprehensive service facilities for trafficking victims;


    Programs to create rehabilitative facilities for trafficking victims; and


    Extraterritorial jurisdiction over trafficking offenses committed overseas by persons employed by or accompanying the federal government.10


    Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA 2008)


     


    In December 2008, Congress reauthorized the TVPA through Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (herein, TVPRA 2008) (P.L.110-457). This bipartisan reauthorization extended and modified certain programs that form the core of the Justice Department’s efforts to prevent and prosecute human trafficking and protect the victims of trafficking and slavery, as well as the Department of Labor’s efforts to better document and deter the trafficking problem. It also allowed the continuation of the Department of Health and Human Services’ efforts to provide services to victims of trafficking, most especially children.


    TVPRA 2008 added the following provisions:


    New crimes were created that imposed penalties on those who obstruct or attempt to obstruct prosecutors’ investigations of trafficking.


    The standard of proof for the crime of sex trafficking was changed to require that the government only prove that the defendant acted in “reckless disregard of the fact that such means [force, fraud, or coercion] would be used.”11


    The prior requirement that the defendant knew that the person engaged in commercial sex was a minor was eliminated in sex trafficking charges where the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor.12


    The crime of forced labor was expanded, providing that “force” is a means of violating the law.13


    Criminal liability was imposed on those who, knowingly and with intent to defraud, recruit workers from outside the U.S. for employment within the U.S. by making materially false or fraudulent representations.14


    The penalty was increased for conspiring to commit trafficking.15


    A penalty was created for those who knowingly benefit financially from the participation in ventures that engage in trafficking.16


    Added new prevention and protection measures, such as providing additional information to persons entering the U.S. lawfully and protections for unaccompanied alien minors.


    TVPRA 2013 added the following provisions:


     


    Provides invaluable resources to support holistic services for survivors and to enable law enforcement to investigate cases, to hold perpetrators accountable, and prevent slavery from happening in the first place.


    Prevents U.S. foreign aid from going to countries that use child soldiers.


    Penalizes the confiscation of identity documents, a prevalent form of coercion that traffickers use to exploit victims.


    Creates a grant-making program to respond to humanitarian emergencies that result in an increased risk of trafficking, such as the situation in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake when children’s vulnerability to re-trafficking escalated sharply.


    Authorizes the J/Tip office to form local partnerships in focus countries to combat child trafficking through Child Protection Compacts.


    Enhances law enforcement capacity to combat sex tourism by extending jurisdiction under the 2003 PROTECT Act to prosecute U.S. citizens living abroad who commercially sexually exploit children.


    Conclusion


    Despite these efforts, the problem of human trafficking and slavery is still growing. These victims often experience severe trauma that requires intensive therapy, recovery, rehabilitation, and restorative services as a result of their abuse. In addition, human trafficking and slavery criminal cases are often complicated and lengthy legal proceedings that require additional resources for prosecutors as well as victims. Many of these victims require comprehensive case management provided by victim service organizations to see them through their recovery, help them navigate the legal system, and provide assistance to law enforcement necessary to prosecute criminal enterprises involved in trafficking and modern-day slavery.


     


    http://endslaveryandtrafficking.org/fy2014/Relevant-Authorization-Statutes.php" rel="nofollow">http://endslaveryandtrafficking.org/fy2014/Relevant-Authorization-Statutes.php

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why does the fact that they were once illegally in Mexico have anything to do with whether or not they are threatened in El Salvador and therefore deserve asylum, OR with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008?

    [/QUOTE]

    Location. Are you going to claim Mexico is unable to offer these children a home?  Why move them further north? Some thing special about the U.S? In this regard?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to miscricket's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .




    Well, maybe not.  If said person comes from El Salvador, where they are under threat, and are now residing in Mexico, by virtue of traveling thru, they are. No longer under the threat they claim, right?


    so, by what legal or moral justification are they allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border for a problem in El Salvador?  The threat has been neutralized once they set foot in Mexico.


    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry but that argument just doesn't make logical sense. We don't border El Salvador...right? Last time I checked anyone trying to get through to the US for asylum would have to cross through Mexico..right? Unless Mexico is going to offer them asylum..? Is that what you are suggesting?


    [/QUOTE]


    Nice try at ignorance, but you are too smart.



    The issue is with El Salvador and how they are treated there. Once they are out of El Salvador, threat mitigated, right?


    what I am saying is that being in Mexico, they are not under threat. As far as asylum, Mexico should offer it, if needed.  Why go easy on Mexico?


    but, this isn't about asylum. It is about the democrats building a controlled underclass.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from 8101956. Show 8101956's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    Are Mandated Reporters covered in the TVPRA 2008 ?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to 8101956's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are Mandated Reporters covered in the TVPRA 2008 ?

    [/QUOTE]


    Mandated Reporters are persons who, as a result of their profession, are more likely to be aware of abuse or neglect of persons with disabilities.

    Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA 2008) as I posted above focuses on the issue of trafficking in persons included those trafficked into the sex trade, slavery and forced labor. The TVPA 2000 was created to, “ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.”3 In particular, there were three main components of the TVPA, commonly called the three P’s:

    PROTECTION: The TVPA increased the U.S. Government’s efforts to protect trafficked foreign national victims including, but not limited to:

    Victims of trafficking, many of whom were previously ineligible for government assistance, were provided assistance; and

    A non-immigrant status for victims of trafficking if they cooperated in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers (T-Visas, as well as providing other mechanisms to ensure the continued presence of victims to assist in such investigations and prosecutions).

    PROSECUTION: The TVPA authorized the U.S. Government to strengthen efforts to prosecute traffickers including, but not limited to:

    Creating a series of new crimes on trafficking, forced labor, and document servitude that supplemented existing limited crimes related to slavery and involuntary servitude; and

    Recognizing that modern-day slavery takes place in the context of fraud and coercion, as well as force, and is based on new clear definitions for both trafficking into sexual exploitation and labor exploitation: Sex trafficking was defined as, “a commercial sex act that is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age.”4 Labor trafficking was defined as, “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.”5

    PREVENTION: The TVPA allowed for increased prevention measures including, but not limited to:

    Authorizing the U.S. Government to assist foreign countries with their efforts to combat trafficking, 

    as well as address trafficking within the United States, including through research and awareness-raising; and

    providing foreign countries with assistance in drafting laws to prosecute trafficking, creating programs for trafficking victims, and assistance with implementing effective means of investigation.

     

    I could not find anywhere that mandated reporters are covered in these acts, including TVPRA 2008.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why does the fact that they were once illegally in Mexico have anything to do with whether or not they are threatened in El Salvador and therefore deserve asylum, OR with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008?

    [/QUOTE]

    Location. Are you going to claim Mexico is unable to offer these children a home?  Why move them further north? Some thing special about the U.S? In this regard?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    So, if we decide an alien must have first crossed the Mexican border illegally before crossing our border illegally, we should just dump them at the Mexican border?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 8101956. Show 8101956's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    andiejen I imagine a Border Patrol Agent is a mandated reporter . I think that under MGL c 19A a mandated reporter in Massachusetts has to fill out a a form 51A and also has to give a verbal report within 48 hours. It wouldn't be a stretch that a Mandated Reporter at the Federal Level has a similar duty to act . Once that any mandated reporter files a report in writing or by voice wouldn't the clause in the TVPRA of 2008 come into play where it states that no one can obstruct a investigation by prosecutors. Wouldn't the prosecutors or his or her designee interview the immigrant child to find if that child is in danger of harm ? My next question as a compassionate and reasonable adult is is that interview by the prosecutor or his or her designee be considered due process .

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, maybe not.  If said person comes from El Salvador, where they are under threat, and are now residing in Mexico, by virtue of traveling thru, they are. No longer under the threat they claim, right?

     

     

    so, by what legal or moral justification are they allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border for a problem in El Salvador?  The threat has been neutralized once they set foot in Mexico.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry but that argument just doesn't make logical sense. We don't border El Salvador...right? Last time I checked anyone trying to get through to the US for asylum would have to cross through Mexico..right? Unless Mexico is going to offer them asylum..? Is that what you are suggesting?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Nice try at ignorance, but you are too smart.

     


    The issue is with El Salvador and how they are treated there. Once they are out of El Salvador, threat mitigated, right?

     

    what I am saying is that being in Mexico, they are not under threat. As far as asylum, Mexico should offer it, if needed.  Why go easy on Mexico?

     

    but, this isn't about asylum. It is about the democrats building a controlled underclass.

    [/QUOTE]


    So if a child flees El Salvador and winds up in Mexico they should stay there because their imminent danger is over? Why..are the Mexican authorities going to protect them from the people who want to harm them? We should not care what happens to these children but just leave them to their own devices in the back roads of a third world country? Yikes.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Federal Government is obeying the law under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, maybe not.  If said person comes from El Salvador, where they are under threat, and are now residing in Mexico, by virtue of traveling thru, they are. No longer under the threat they claim, right?

     

     

    so, by what legal or moral justification are they allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border for a problem in El Salvador?  The threat has been neutralized once they set foot in Mexico.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry but that argument just doesn't make logical sense. We don't border El Salvador...right? Last time I checked anyone trying to get through to the US for asylum would have to cross through Mexico..right? Unless Mexico is going to offer them asylum..? Is that what you are suggesting?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Nice try at ignorance, but you are too smart.

     


    The issue is with El Salvador and how they are treated there. Once they are out of El Salvador, threat mitigated, right?

     

    what I am saying is that being in Mexico, they are not under threat. As far as asylum, Mexico should offer it, if needed.  Why go easy on Mexico?

     

    but, this isn't about asylum. It is about the democrats building a controlled underclass.

    [/QUOTE]


    So if a child flees El Salvador and winds up in Mexico they should stay there because their imminent danger is over? Why..are the Mexican authorities going to protect them from the people who want to harm them? We should not care what happens to these children but just leave them to their own devices in the back roads of a third world country? Yikes.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why wouldn't Mexico authorities protect these kids? Yikes back at yah.  I find it funny that progressives tend to think our country is the great oppressor of the world, insist we are not exceptional, and then, as if that is not the drum they have been banging for the past thirty years, all of a sudden think only the U.S. Is capable of being exceptional.

    Point out to me where in the constitution is says we are responsible for the world's children.

    Tell me the moral basis for Mexico shirking their responsibility and throwing it on our backs.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to 8101956's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    andiejen I imagine a Border Patrol Agent is a mandated reporter . I think that under MGL c 19A a mandated reporter in Massachusetts has to fill out a a form 51A and also has to give a verbal report within 48 hours. It wouldn't be a stretch that a Mandated Reporter at the Federal Level has a similar duty to act . Once that any mandated reporter files a report in writing or by voice wouldn't the clause in the TVPRA of 2008 come into play where it states that no one can obstruct a investigation by prosecutors. Wouldn't the prosecutors or his or her designee interview the immigrant child to find if that child is in danger of harm ? My next question as a compassionate and reasonable adult is is that interview by the prosecutor or his or her designee be considered due process .

    [/QUOTE]


     8101956,

    To skip to your last question, just an interview by a border agent or any other government official of an UAC (undocumented alien child) I do not believe constitutes due process.

    This only happens with an UAC from a contiguous country, i.e., Mexico and Canada. If the child is from any other country they have the right to have a hearing and see a judge. That is due process.

    Below is a primer on what happens to an UAC at the border.

     

    Unaccompanied Alien Children: A Primer

    Posted on: Monday, July 21, 2014
    Understanding the legal requirements and the history of the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA)
    By Lazaro Zamora
    At the center of the current debate over the government’s response to the surge in unaccompanied minor children is the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), specifically, Section 235: Enhancing Efforts To Combat The Trafficking of Children. Many claim that the TVPRA ties the government’s hands in dealing with the number of minors being apprehended at the border because it prevents quick deportations for children from any country not bordering the United States, or “non-contiguous countries.”

     

    Until the recent border crisis, the TVPRA had a non-controversial history of bipartisan agreement. While the 2008 version was the first to introduce specific language on the immigration treatment of “unaccompanied alien children” (UAC), the TVPRA dates back to 2000, when the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) was first enacted into law. The TVPRA was reauthorized in December 2008 by unanimous consent in the Senate and a voice vote in the House and was signed into law by President Bush.

     

    Treatment of UAC under Current Law

     

    The 2008 TVPRA, specifically Section 235, codified the now-scrutinized process for the treatment of all UAC in the United States and established “special rules” for children from “contiguous countries” (Mexico and Canada). Section 235 was based on previously proposed legislation that also passed the Senate by unanimous consent, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005 (UACPA). The new TVPRA provisions sought to address concerns that children apprehended were not being properly looked after or adequately screened to determine if they should not be returned to their country of origin. Similar criticisms during the 1980s and 90s against the former Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) led to several lawsuits against the government that resulted in the Flores Agreement of 1997, which established regulations for the humane detention and treatment of UAC. Several years later, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) again addressed the treatment of children and transferred responsibility for UAC from DHS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

     

    Defining Unaccompanied Alien Children. Upon apprehension, Border Patrol agents make the first determination of whether a child is “unaccompanied.” HSA defined the term unaccompanied alien child to mean a child who has no lawful immigration status in the United States; has not attained 18 years of age;1 and has no parent or legal guardian in the United States or available to provide care.2 Although many of the children may already have family inside of the United States, current practice by DHS classifies children as unaccompanied “if neither a parent or legal guardian (with a court-order to that effect) is with the juvenile at the time of apprehension, or within a geographical proximity” to care for the juvenile.3 According to interviews conducted with DHS officials in 2006, “if a parent or legal guardian is not present to provide care (or cannot be present within a short period of time) that child is technically considered unaccompanied and processed accordingly.”4

     

    Under the TVPRA, DHS screens Mexican children within 48 hours of apprehension to determine if the child is a victim of trafficking or has a claim to asylum based on fear of persecution. If the child does not meet that criteria, they are eligible to agree to a voluntary return and speedy repatriation to Mexico. On the other hand, UAC from non-contiguous countries must be transferred to ORR within 72 hours of apprehension and are guaranteed an immigration court hearing.

     

    Processing of UAC from Contiguous Countries

     

    Step 1. Screening: DHS must screen children within 48 hours of apprehension to determine if the child is from a contiguous country, a trafficking victim or has a claim to asylum. Specifically, DHS will use the following criteria to determine its next steps:

     

    Child has not been a victim of severe trafficking;
    No evidence that the child is at risk of being trafficked upon return;
    No credible fear persecution upon returning; and
    Child is able to make an independent decision to withdraw an application for admission to the United States, known as voluntary return.
    Step 2. Determination: If the child meets the criteria, he or she is eligible for voluntary return and can be returned to their country of nationality. If the child does not meet the criteria, he or she will be immediately transferred to ORR and put in formal removal proceedings.

     

    Step 3. Repatriation: The State Department must ensure safe repatriation of UAC into their country of nationality through agreements with contiguous countries. At minimum, agreements must provide that children are returned to appropriate government or welfare officials and returned during daylight hours.

     

    Processing of UAC from Other Countries

     

    All UAC are placed in formal removal proceedings and appear in immigration court. Their care and custody, including responsibility for their detention or placement with family or sponsors while their immigration cases are processed, is the responsibility of HHS. The TVPRA lists the following steps and protections for UAC post-apprehension:

     

    Notification. HHS must be notified within 48 hours upon the apprehension of a UAC.
    Transfer. Except in the case of “exceptional circumstances,” UAC should be transferred to HHS no later than 72 hours after the child is determined to be unaccompanied.
    Safe Placement. UAC must be promptly placed in the “least restrictive setting possible” while awaiting court hearing. (Usually this means placement with a parent, relative or other sponsor in the United States. If no sponsor can be found, ORR retains custody, which may mean placement in shelter or foster home).
    Suitability Assessment. The child may not be placed until HHS determines that the proposed sponsor is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental wellbeing. At minimum, they are required to verify the custodian’s identity and relationship to the child.
    Legal Orientation. HHS must work with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to ensure that custodians receive legal orientation presentations.
    Access to Counsel. HHS must try to ensure that UAC have access to pro bono legal counsel.
    Child Advocate. UAC should be provided access to an advocate.
    The Challenge

     

    As noted above, except for UAC from Mexico or Canada, UAC are placed in formal removal proceedings and appear in immigration court. At the same time, ORR must find the least restrictive setting possible for UAC while they wait for their immigration case to be processed. Immigration processes can take can take months or even years due to court backlogs. According to the Transactional Records Clearinghouse (TRAC), the total number of immigration cases in the backlog reached 375,000 in June 2014, including 41,640 minors who are waiting for their court date.5 TRAC also estimates the average wait time for all cases (not just for children) to be 587 days.

     

    Since most of the children arriving at the southern border are from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, the children cannot be quickly screened and sent back through voluntary return when no fear of trafficking or persecution exists. When the 2008 TVPRA was enacted, only about 3,300 UAC were being apprehended from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador; so far in FY 2014, nearly 44,000 UAC from those three nations have been apprehended.6 The unprecedented number of children have strained government’s ability to house, place or process them in accordance with TVPRA provisions without further resources, emergency discretionary fixes, or legislative changes.

     

    Administrative Fixes and Proposed Legislation

     

    Administration. President Obama has submitted an emergency supplemental request to Congress, asking for $3.7 billion to manage the crisis at the border with further resources. In an earlier letter to Congress, the White House also asked for “additional authority to exercise discretion in processing the return and removal of unaccompanied minor children from non-contiguous countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.” It remains unclear what specific “authority” the White House is asking for. While the president has suggested that he would be open to revisiting the TVPRA, Secretary Jeh Johnson testified at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he believes the crisis could be managed without permanently changing the law. The Department of Justice has also taken steps to re-prioritize its dockets and resources in order to focus on the recent border crossers.

     

    Some questions have arisen around whether the current law allows DHS the flexibility to process children expeditiously through the “exceptional circumstances” exception in the “transfer” step for apprehended UAC. However, the law itself does not elaborate on what those “circumstances” could be. Some have proposed that DHS, or other relevant agencies who execute the law, procedurally define “exceptional circumstances” in order to allow the government the flexibility to manage unanticipated waves of immigrants. A high number of children in a single month or year that exceeds a specified limit set according to DHS or HHS resources, for example, could trigger “exceptional circumstances,” and set emergency procedures that would allow DHS to quickly process and return UAC. So far, none of the legislative proposals have tried to define or build upon this particular tool.

     

    Congress. In response to the president’s requests, several members of Congress have begun to introduce legislation to amend the 2008 TVPRA in order to be able to treat children from Central America similarly to Mexican children. Below are summaries of legislation introduced:

     

    Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Representative Henry Cuellar (D-TX) – Humane Act

     

    All UAC would be treated equally under the TVPRA.
    Instead of being put in formal removal proceedings, children that do not meet the criteria during initial screening are put in a new form of removal: “Expedited Due Process and Screening for Unaccompanied Alien Children.” Under this new removal process, UAC will make their case before an immigration judge within 7 days of undergoing initial screening. Judges will then have 72 hours to decide on the case.
    UAC must remain in government custody and cannot be turned over to a sponsor before their court hearing. Children who succeed in their claim will be allowed to remain in the United States in the custody of a sponsor while they pursue legal remedies.
    HHS will have to run background checks on any person taking custody of a UAC.
    Keeps current law in place requiring HHS to make all efforts to provide pro bono legal counsel and authorizes up to 40 new immigration judges.

    Read more proposals at the site.

     

    http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/immigration/2014/07/21/unaccompanied-alien-children-primer

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Unconstitutional or not? Why?

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 8101956's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    andiejen I imagine a Border Patrol Agent is a mandated reporter . I think that under MGL c 19A a mandated reporter in Massachusetts has to fill out a a form 51A and also has to give a verbal report within 48 hours. It wouldn't be a stretch that a Mandated Reporter at the Federal Level has a similar duty to act . Once that any mandated reporter files a report in writing or by voice wouldn't the clause in the TVPRA of 2008 come into play where it states that no one can obstruct a investigation by prosecutors. Wouldn't the prosecutors or his or her designee interview the immigrant child to find if that child is in danger of harm ? My next question as a compassionate and reasonable adult is is that interview by the prosecutor or his or her designee be considered due process .

    [/QUOTE]


     8101956,

    To skip to your last question, just an interview by a border agent or any other government official of an UAC (undocumented alien child) I do not believe constitutes due process.

    This only happens with an UAC from a contiguous country, i.e., Mexico and Canada. If the child is from any other country they have the right to have a hearing and see a judge. That is due process.

    Below is a primer on what happens to an UAC at the border.

     

    Unaccompanied Alien Children: A Primer

    Posted on: Monday, July 21, 2014
    Understanding the legal requirements and the history of the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA)
    By Lazaro Zamora
    At the center of the current debate over the government’s response to the surge in unaccompanied minor children is the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), specifically, Section 235: Enhancing Efforts To Combat The Trafficking of Children. Many claim that the TVPRA ties the government’s hands in dealing with the number of minors being apprehended at the border because it prevents quick deportations for children from any country not bordering the United States, or “non-contiguous countries.”

     

    Until the recent border crisis, the TVPRA had a non-controversial history of bipartisan agreement. While the 2008 version was the first to introduce specific language on the immigration treatment of “unaccompanied alien children” (UAC), the TVPRA dates back to 2000, when the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) was first enacted into law. The TVPRA was reauthorized in December 2008 by unanimous consent in the Senate and a voice vote in the House and was signed into law by President Bush.

     

    Treatment of UAC under Current Law

     

    The 2008 TVPRA, specifically Section 235, codified the now-scrutinized process for the treatment of all UAC in the United States and established “special rules” for children from “contiguous countries” (Mexico and Canada). Section 235 was based on previously proposed legislation that also passed the Senate by unanimous consent, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005 (UACPA). The new TVPRA provisions sought to address concerns that children apprehended were not being properly looked after or adequately screened to determine if they should not be returned to their country of origin. Similar criticisms during the 1980s and 90s against the former Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) led to several lawsuits against the government that resulted in the Flores Agreement of 1997, which established regulations for the humane detention and treatment of UAC. Several years later, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) again addressed the treatment of children and transferred responsibility for UAC from DHS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

     

    Defining Unaccompanied Alien Children. Upon apprehension, Border Patrol agents make the first determination of whether a child is “unaccompanied.” HSA defined the term unaccompanied alien child to mean a child who has no lawful immigration status in the United States; has not attained 18 years of age;1 and has no parent or legal guardian in the United States or available to provide care.2 Although many of the children may already have family inside of the United States, current practice by DHS classifies children as unaccompanied “if neither a parent or legal guardian (with a court-order to that effect) is with the juvenile at the time of apprehension, or within a geographical proximity” to care for the juvenile.3 According to interviews conducted with DHS officials in 2006, “if a parent or legal guardian is not present to provide care (or cannot be present within a short period of time) that child is technically considered unaccompanied and processed accordingly.”4

     

    Under the TVPRA, DHS screens Mexican children within 48 hours of apprehension to determine if the child is a victim of trafficking or has a claim to asylum based on fear of persecution. If the child does not meet that criteria, they are eligible to agree to a voluntary return and speedy repatriation to Mexico. On the other hand, UAC from non-contiguous countries must be transferred to ORR within 72 hours of apprehension and are guaranteed an immigration court hearing.

     

    Processing of UAC from Contiguous Countries

     

    Step 1. Screening: DHS must screen children within 48 hours of apprehension to determine if the child is from a contiguous country, a trafficking victim or has a claim to asylum. Specifically, DHS will use the following criteria to determine its next steps:

     

    Child has not been a victim of severe trafficking;
    No evidence that the child is at risk of being trafficked upon return;
    No credible fear persecution upon returning; and
    Child is able to make an independent decision to withdraw an application for admission to the United States, known as voluntary return.
    Step 2. Determination: If the child meets the criteria, he or she is eligible for voluntary return and can be returned to their country of nationality. If the child does not meet the criteria, he or she will be immediately transferred to ORR and put in formal removal proceedings.

     

    Step 3. Repatriation: The State Department must ensure safe repatriation of UAC into their country of nationality through agreements with contiguous countries. At minimum, agreements must provide that children are returned to appropriate government or welfare officials and returned during daylight hours.

     

    Processing of UAC from Other Countries

     

    All UAC are placed in formal removal proceedings and appear in immigration court. Their care and custody, including responsibility for their detention or placement with family or sponsors while their immigration cases are processed, is the responsibility of HHS. The TVPRA lists the following steps and protections for UAC post-apprehension:

     

    Notification. HHS must be notified within 48 hours upon the apprehension of a UAC.
    Transfer. Except in the case of “exceptional circumstances,” UAC should be transferred to HHS no later than 72 hours after the child is determined to be unaccompanied.
    Safe Placement. UAC must be promptly placed in the “least restrictive setting possible” while awaiting court hearing. (Usually this means placement with a parent, relative or other sponsor in the United States. If no sponsor can be found, ORR retains custody, which may mean placement in shelter or foster home).
    Suitability Assessment. The child may not be placed until HHS determines that the proposed sponsor is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental wellbeing. At minimum, they are required to verify the custodian’s identity and relationship to the child.
    Legal Orientation. HHS must work with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to ensure that custodians receive legal orientation presentations.
    Access to Counsel. HHS must try to ensure that UAC have access to pro bono legal counsel.
    Child Advocate. UAC should be provided access to an advocate.
    The Challenge

     

    As noted above, except for UAC from Mexico or Canada, UAC are placed in formal removal proceedings and appear in immigration court. At the same time, ORR must find the least restrictive setting possible for UAC while they wait for their immigration case to be processed. Immigration processes can take can take months or even years due to court backlogs. According to the Transactional Records Clearinghouse (TRAC), the total number of immigration cases in the backlog reached 375,000 in June 2014, including 41,640 minors who are waiting for their court date.5 TRAC also estimates the average wait time for all cases (not just for children) to be 587 days.

     

    Since most of the children arriving at the southern border are from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, the children cannot be quickly screened and sent back through voluntary return when no fear of trafficking or persecution exists. When the 2008 TVPRA was enacted, only about 3,300 UAC were being apprehended from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador; so far in FY 2014, nearly 44,000 UAC from those three nations have been apprehended.6 The unprecedented number of children have strained government’s ability to house, place or process them in accordance with TVPRA provisions without further resources, emergency discretionary fixes, or legislative changes.

     

    Administrative Fixes and Proposed Legislation

     

    Administration. President Obama has submitted an emergency supplemental request to Congress, asking for $3.7 billion to manage the crisis at the border with further resources. In an earlier letter to Congress, the White House also asked for “additional authority to exercise discretion in processing the return and removal of unaccompanied minor children from non-contiguous countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.” It remains unclear what specific “authority” the White House is asking for. While the president has suggested that he would be open to revisiting the TVPRA, Secretary Jeh Johnson testified at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he believes the crisis could be managed without permanently changing the law. The Department of Justice has also taken steps to re-prioritize its dockets and resources in order to focus on the recent border crossers.

     

    Some questions have arisen around whether the current law allows DHS the flexibility to process children expeditiously through the “exceptional circumstances” exception in the “transfer” step for apprehended UAC. However, the law itself does not elaborate on what those “circumstances” could be. Some have proposed that DHS, or other relevant agencies who execute the law, procedurally define “exceptional circumstances” in order to allow the government the flexibility to manage unanticipated waves of immigrants. A high number of children in a single month or year that exceeds a specified limit set according to DHS or HHS resources, for example, could trigger “exceptional circumstances,” and set emergency procedures that would allow DHS to quickly process and return UAC. So far, none of the legislative proposals have tried to define or build upon this particular tool.

     

    Congress. In response to the president’s requests, several members of Congress have begun to introduce legislation to amend the 2008 TVPRA in order to be able to treat children from Central America similarly to Mexican children. Below are summaries of legislation introduced:

     

    Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Representative Henry Cuellar (D-TX) – Humane Act

     

    All UAC would be treated equally under the TVPRA.
    Instead of being put in formal removal proceedings, children that do not meet the criteria during initial screening are put in a new form of removal: “Expedited Due Process and Screening for Unaccompanied Alien Children.” Under this new removal process, UAC will make their case before an immigration judge within 7 days of undergoing initial screening. Judges will then have 72 hours to decide on the case.
    UAC must remain in government custody and cannot be turned over to a sponsor before their court hearing. Children who succeed in their claim will be allowed to remain in the United States in the custody of a sponsor while they pursue legal remedies.
    HHS will have to run background checks on any person taking custody of a UAC.
    Keeps current law in place requiring HHS to make all efforts to provide pro bono legal counsel and authorizes up to 40 new immigration judges.

    Read more proposals at the site.

     

    http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/immigration/2014/07/21/unaccompanied-alien-children-primer" rel="nofollow">http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/immigration/2014/07/21/unaccompanied-alien-children-primer

     

    [/QUOTE]

    El Salvador is not a contiguous country.  Look at a map if you don't believe me.

     

Share