Will “mass deportation” actually happen (12 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

It’s so repulsive to see people cheering for what is basically 80% the same thing as the Holocaust - different end result but otherwise very similar.

Economists have said it would tank the economy and cause inflation - notwithstanding the cost.

Is it going to actually happen or is this Build The Wall 2.0?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don’t think I said she had to comply. She wasn’t asked to comply. However, if she choose not to support federal law enforcement, she should not have actively aided the individual to evade arrest. If that’s what she did, then she broke the law as well as violate her oath of office.

That’s my opinion. But a federal judge will sort this all out. The question is whether she aided in the individuals attempt to evade arrest. There is a difference in standing idle and active participation. Buying time by sending the agents to the administrative judge while pointing to a non public side entrance might be viewed by some as active participation.

So we will she how prosecutors judges and lawyers sort all this out.

It has become fashionable to ignore federal law when you don’t like it. Makes it difficult later on to enforce the rule of law. And we wonder why no one respects or trusts the government. Especially when people who should know better undermine the very rule of law they are sworn to uphold.

Ah, gotcha. Can you point to the federal law she ignored or the federal law that makes it illegal for her to let someone use the side door to leave her courtroom?

 

[TampaJoe]

Ah, gotcha. Can you point to the federal law she ignored or the federal law that makes it illegal for her to let someone use the side door

I didn’t realize this was some kind of game for you.

According to US News and World Reports

She faces charges of “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest” and obstructing or impeding a proceeding.

I dont have the actual code section but I believe it is broadly known as “Obstruction of Justice”. It involves proving intent. So it will be up to a judge and/or a jury to decide if it goes to trial. There appears to have been enough evidence to charge and arrest her.

 

[samiam5211]

This judge bullshirt is a distraction.

She is a ignorant activist who can't do her job.

Trump is a vajayjay for arresting her over it.

How in the fork is this getting so much media attention.

It is like arguing over where to put the smoke detectors while the house is burning down.

Bread and circus.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Two women who were deported to Hondurasalongside their US citizen children were held in “complete isolation” and denied any opportunity to coordinate the care and custody of their children before being put on a flight, according to one of the lawyers representing them.

The mothers were unable to contact attorneys or loved ones, and were not allowed the option to transfer the custody of their citizen children to another parent or caregiver, said Gracie Willis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project who is representing one of the families and coordinating with the team representing the other family.

“Here we had moms held completely in isolation, being told what was happening to their children. They didn’t have an opportunity to talk this through, to weigh the pros and cons of taking or leaving their children in the US,” Willis said.


One of the mothers, who was deported with her seven-year-old and her four-year-old, both of whom are citizens, was unable to access medications and care for her youngest, who has a rare form of late-stage cancer.

Another woman, who is pregnant, was put on a plane to Honduras along with her 11-year-old and two-year-old daughters, even as the children’s father and a caretaker designated by the family were desperately trying to contact them.

“She’s in the early stages of a pregnancy and has undergone unimaginable stress,” said Willis. “So she’s trying to ensure her and that unborn child’s safety and health, while also processing and working through what they’ve all been through.”

Both families were detained at regular check-in appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in New Orleans, according to lawyers, and then taken hours away from the city and prohibited from communicating with family members.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrant parents in similar situations, who have both a deportation order and US citizen children, have to choose whether to leave their kids in the US under the care of another family member or guardian, or surrender them to Child Protective Services.

“No parent would want to be in that situation,” Willis said. “And we don’t bring any judgment against any decision that a parent makes.”


But the mothers who were rushed on to deportation flights with their children last week, in high-profile cases that have drawn widespread condemnation from civil rights groups and lawmakers, were not empowered to make any real choices for their families, Willis said.

“There were no real decisions being made here, especially when those parents were not able to communicate with other available caregivers,” she added.……….

Mothers deported by Trump ‘denied’ chance to transfer custody of children, lawyer says

Two women and their children, who are US citizens, held in ‘complete isolation’ before being put on flight to Honduras

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Two women who were deported to Hondurasalongside their US citizen children were held in “complete isolation” and denied any opportunity to coordinate the care and custody of their children before being put on a flight, according to one of the lawyers representing them.

The mothers were unable to contact attorneys or loved ones, and were not allowed the option to transfer the custody of their citizen children to another parent or caregiver, said Gracie Willis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project who is representing one of the families and coordinating with the team representing the other family.

“Here we had moms held completely in isolation, being told what was happening to their children. They didn’t have an opportunity to talk this through, to weigh the pros and cons of taking or leaving their children in the US,” Willis said.


One of the mothers, who was deported with her seven-year-old and her four-year-old, both of whom are citizens, was unable to access medications and care for her youngest, who has a rare form of late-stage cancer.

Another woman, who is pregnant, was put on a plane to Honduras along with her 11-year-old and two-year-old daughters, even as the children’s father and a caretaker designated by the family were desperately trying to contact them.

“She’s in the early stages of a pregnancy and has undergone unimaginable stress,” said Willis. “So she’s trying to ensure her and that unborn child’s safety and health, while also processing and working through what they’ve all been through.”

Both families were detained at regular check-in appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in New Orleans, according to lawyers, and then taken hours away from the city and prohibited from communicating with family members.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrant parents in similar situations, who have both a deportation order and US citizen children, have to choose whether to leave their kids in the US under the care of another family member or guardian, or surrender them to Child Protective Services.

“No parent would want to be in that situation,” Willis said. “And we don’t bring any judgment against any decision that a parent makes.”


But the mothers who were rushed on to deportation flights with their children last week, in high-profile cases that have drawn widespread condemnation from civil rights groups and lawmakers, were not empowered to make any real choices for their families, Willis said.

“There were no real decisions being made here, especially when those parents were not able to communicate with other available caregivers,” she added.……….

Mothers deported by Trump ‘denied’ chance to transfer custody of children, lawyer says

Two women and their children, who are US citizens, held in ‘complete isolation’ before being put on flight to Honduras

www.theguardian.com

Sendai? Care to comment on this? Still think this is normal and acceptable? Maybe this is part of the intimidation tactics you seem to approve of?

 

[Optimus Prime]

So much for poor, huddled masses: Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee intend, to make it prohibitively expensive to immigrate to the United States.

In a 116-page reconciliation amendment from Chairman Jim Jordan, Republicans have proposed a whopping $1000 fee for asylum seekers—the first of its kind in U.S. history.

The fee would be no less than $1000, they wrote, and would increase each subsequent year to the amount from the previous rounded to the lowest multiple of ten and multiplied by the percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers year over year starting in 2026.

For every year that the case remains pending, the immigrant would be charged an additional fee of no less than $100.

An application Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, known as an I-589, currently costs $0 according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services fee schedule.

The amendment also proposed a fee of $550 for those applying for employment authorization under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The permits would elapse every six months, making it extremely expensive to work in the U.S. as an immigrant. It previously cost $520 to file an I-765 form by paper, and $470 to file online.

The amendment also proposed a $3,500 fee to sponsor the immigration of an unaccompanied child as “partial reimbursement to the Federal Government” for its processing and care of the child.

The amendment also proposes a $5,000 fee that can be reimbursed at the end of the child’s immigration proceedings “if such sponsor demonstrates that the unaccompanied alien child in the care of such sponsor was not ordered removed in absentia.”

The proposed legislation would balloon upfront fees for sponsoring an immigrant child to a whopping $8,500. Previously, an I-130 petition for an alien relative would cost $675 for paper filing, and $625 for online filing.…….

Republicans Sneak Staggering Asylum Fee into Budget Bill

It’s about to get a lot more expensive to immigrate into the U.S. under Donald Trump.

newrepublic.com

 

[Dragon]

So much for poor, huddled masses: Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee intend, to make it prohibitively expensive to immigrate to the United States.

In a 116-page reconciliation amendment from Chairman Jim Jordan, Republicans have proposed a whopping $1000 fee for asylum seekers—the first of its kind in U.S. history.

The fee would be no less than $1000, they wrote, and would increase each subsequent year to the amount from the previous rounded to the lowest multiple of ten and multiplied by the percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers year over year starting in 2026.

For every year that the case remains pending, the immigrant would be charged an additional fee of no less than $100.

An application Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, known as an I-589, currently costs $0 according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services fee schedule.

The amendment also proposed a fee of $550 for those applying for employment authorization under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The permits would elapse every six months, making it extremely expensive to work in the U.S. as an immigrant. It previously cost $520 to file an I-765 form by paper, and $470 to file online.

The amendment also proposed a $3,500 fee to sponsor the immigration of an unaccompanied child as “partial reimbursement to the Federal Government” for its processing and care of the child.

The amendment also proposes a $5,000 fee that can be reimbursed at the end of the child’s immigration proceedings “if such sponsor demonstrates that the unaccompanied alien child in the care of such sponsor was not ordered removed in absentia.”

The proposed legislation would balloon upfront fees for sponsoring an immigrant child to a whopping $8,500. Previously, an I-130 petition for an alien relative would cost $675 for paper filing, and $625 for online filing.…….

Republicans Sneak Staggering Asylum Fee into Budget Bill

It’s about to get a lot more expensive to immigrate into the U.S. under Donald Trump.

newrepublic.com

This is the latest attempt to block valid asylum claims by pricing people out of their legal rights — rights protected under both U.S. and international law.


The United States is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (UNHCR reference here), which explicitly prohibit penalizing asylum seekers for irregular entry and guarantee the right to seek protection, regardless of their financial status.

Domestically, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — specifically § 208(a)(1) — affirms that “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States [...] may apply for asylum.”
Nowhere does it state that financial barriers are a condition for exercising that right. (INA reference here)

Charging asylum seekers thousands of dollars — especially for simply applying — turns a human right into a privilege for the wealthy, in clear violation of both international commitments and U.S. law.

 

[TampaJoe]

This judge bullshirt is a distraction.

She is a ignorant activist who can't do her job.

Trump is a vajayjay for arresting her over it.

How in the fork is this getting so much media attention.

It is like arguing over where to put the smoke detectors while the house is burning down.

Bread and circus.

It is a huge pissing match.

What we should be doing is crafting legislation that addresses immigration including asylum that is acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. We aren’t going to deport 20 million people. It is cost prohibitive. The administration has greatly reduced undocumented traffic across the border. Now is the time to figure out how and where we go from here.

That is a reasonable alternative to the current pissing match. We need to get away from simply ignoring laws and processes we don’t like and start working the thru these issues legislatively. The alternative simply erodes confidence and trust in government. Neither party benefits in the long run.

 

[superchuck500]

This is the latest attempt to block valid asylum claims by pricing people out of their legal rights — rights protected under both U.S. and international law.


The United States is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (UNHCR reference here), which explicitly prohibit penalizing asylum seekers for irregular entry and guarantee the right to seek protection, regardless of their financial status.

Domestically, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — specifically § 208(a)(1) — affirms that “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States [...] may apply for asylum.”
Nowhere does it state that financial barriers are a condition for exercising that right. (INA reference here)

Charging asylum seekers thousands of dollars — especially for simply applying — turns a human right into a privilege for the wealthy, in clear violation of both international commitments and U.S. law.

It's clearly abhorrent and a violation of the international treaties that the US has signed and agreed to. It wouldn't be a violation of US law because the fees, themselves, would be statutory and thus also US law. The two would be read together to mean that those fees would apply to asylum seekers. For this reason, these provisions have to be opposed and prevented from becoming law. Just disgusting.

 

[superchuck500]

It is a huge pissing match.

What we should be doing is crafting legislation that addresses immigration including asylum that is acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. We aren’t going to deport 20 million people. It is cost prohibitive. The administration has greatly reduced undocumented traffic across the border. Now is the time to figure out how and where we go from here.

That is a reasonable alternative to the current pissing match. We need to get away from simply ignoring laws and processes we don’t like and start working the thru these issues legislatively. The alternative simply erodes confidence and trust in government. Neither party benefits in the long run.

I'm old enough to remember a bi-partisan deal reached in Congress to address much of the immigration and border crisis. It was a deal that many said was the best progress Congress has made in years on the situation.

Trump torpedoed it because he didn't want Democrats to be seen as having a "victory" on one of his key issues.

 

[DaveXA]

This is the latest attempt to block valid asylum claims by pricing people out of their legal rights — rights protected under both U.S. and international law.


The United States is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (UNHCR reference here), which explicitly prohibit penalizing asylum seekers for irregular entry and guarantee the right to seek protection, regardless of their financial status.

Domestically, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — specifically § 208(a)(1) — affirms that “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States [...] may apply for asylum.”
Nowhere does it state that financial barriers are a condition for exercising that right. (INA reference here)

Charging asylum seekers thousands of dollars — especially for simply applying — turns a human right into a privilege for the wealthy, in clear violation of both international commitments and U.S. law.

Also directly contradicts what's quoted on the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

Kinda hard for the poor huddled masses to breathe free when they're burdened before they even are allowed in the country. I hate what we've become.

 

[TampaJoe]

I'm old enough to remember a bi-partisan deal reached in Congress to address much of the immigration and border crisis. It was a deal that many said was the best progress Congress has made in years on the situation.

Trump torpedoed it because he didn't want Democrats to be seen as having a "victory" on one of his key issues.

Now would be a good time to make another run at it. The issue still needs to be resolved. I don’t see another viable solution that doesn’t involved legislation.

Many conservatives opposed legislative solutions at a time when migrants were flooding across the border. That issue appears to have been addressed for the time being.

If the Democrats want to drive the narrative, seems to me they would be more successful working towards a reasonable bi partisan solution, rather than simply being anti Trump. He fancies himself as a deal maker. So go make a deal. Or at least attempt to make a deal.

 

[superchuck500]

Now would be a good time to make another run at it. The issue still needs to be resolved. I don’t see another viable solution that doesn’t involved legislation.

Many conservatives opposed legislative solutions at a time when migrants were flooding across the border. That issue appears to have been addressed for the time being.

If the Democrats want to drive the narrative, seems to me they would be more successful working towards a reasonable bi partisan solution, rather than simply being anti Trump. He fancies himself as a deal maker. So go make a deal. Or at least attempt to make a deal.

It's fair to say they should try again - but the onus is on the Republicans, they have the majority. Right now, they're trying everything they possibly can to cut taxes, they're singularly focused.

 

[Dragon]

Now would be a good time to make another run at it. The issue still needs to be resolved. I don’t see another viable solution that doesn’t involved legislation.

Many conservatives opposed legislative solutions at a time when migrants were flooding across the border. That issue appears to have been addressed for the time being.

If the Democrats want to drive the narrative, seems to me they would be more successful working towards a reasonable bi partisan solution, rather than simply being anti Trump. He fancies himself as a deal maker. So go make a deal. Or at least attempt to make a deal.

Reasonable? The previous deal on the table was reasonable. What’s happening now is not.

The Democrats should in no way support the current treatment of immigrants — from illegal deportations to masked agents detaining people without judicial warrants, to baseless claims being pushed through courts. These actions undermine both due process and basic human rights.

The very suggestion that Democrats should support these measures reflects a troubling lack of understanding of what’s actually happening — and what’s at stake.

 

[TampaJoe]

It's fair to say they should try again - but the onus is on the Republicans, they have the majority. Right now, they're trying everything they possibly can to cut taxes, they're singularly focused.

The GOP does have a slim majority. It is slim but still a majority and so yes they can control the narrative to a large degree. That said, simply being against or opposed only goes so far. They (Dems) need to offer a reasonable path forward and since they are in the minority it will have to be bipartisan. But it is a positive step in the right direction. It gives people a chance to be “for” something positive and bipartisan.

I would take the same approach on things like debt and deficit. There may be conservative boondoggles/programs the Dems would cut or eliminate as wasteful. I would force them to defend those positions. Both sides need to set priorities.

The public supports legal immigration and the public supports cutting wasteful spending and inefficiencies. If I were on the Dem side, I would not cede that territory entirely to the GOP. Dems can be seen as leading on these issues even though they are in the minority for the time being. That will not always be the case.

We have two parties for a reason. I support two parties. Heathy respectful give and take yields better results. We need to get back there.

 

[superchuck500]

The GOP does have a slim majority. It is slim but still a majority and so yes they can control the narrative to a large degree. That said, simply being against or opposed only goes so far. They need to offer a reasonable path forward and since they are in the minority it will have to be bipartisan. But it is a positive step in the right direction. It gives people a chance to be “for” something positive and bipartisan.

I would take the same approach on things like debt and deficit. There may be conservative boondoggles/programs the Dems would cut or eliminate as wasteful.

The public supports legal immigration and the public supports cutting wasteful spending and inefficiencies. If I were on the Dem side, I would not cede that territory entirely to the GOP. Dems can be seen as leading on these issues even though they are in the minority for the time being. That will not always be the case.

We have two parties for a reason. I support two parties. Heathy respectful give and take yields better results. We need to get back there.

Do you have any evidence for this idea that the Democrats are opposing a Republican effort at an immigration reform bill? I haven't heard anything of the sort.

They had a bill with bipartisan support. The Republicans (because Trump ordered them to) killed it. The Republicans have the majority and they're heavily engaged on Trump's "big beautiful bill" which is really just a euphemism for getting all of Trump's agenda in one piece of legislation that avoids reconciliation.

That approach doesn't really leave much room to try to pull that bipartisan support back from last year's bill. It's an all or nothing approach that the Democrats will most certainly have to oppose entirely, leaving it on the handful of possible GOP defectors to decide what happens.

 

[Dragon]

The GOP does have a slim majority. It is slim but still a majority and so yes they can control the narrative to a large degree. That said, simply being against or opposed only goes so far. They (Dems) need to offer a reasonable path forward and since they are in the minority it will have to be bipartisan. But it is a positive step in the right direction. It gives people a chance to be “for” something positive and bipartisan.

I would take the same approach on things like debt and deficit. There may be conservative boondoggles/programs the Dems would cut or eliminate as wasteful. I would force them to defend those positions. Both sides need to set priorities.

The public supports legal immigration and the public supports cutting wasteful spending and inefficiencies. If I were on the Dem side, I would not cede that territory entirely to the GOP. Dems can be seen as leading on these issues even though they are in the minority for the time being. That will not always be the case.

We have two parties for a reason. I support two parties. Heathy respectful give and take yields better results. We need to get back there.

When has the Trump republicans ever respected healthy give and takes? The only thing the democrats will get from being a part of this, is that they will be complicit in actions of the current adminstration. Actions that the majority of the american population is against given the current approval rating of this administration

 

[coldseat]

The GOP does have a slim majority. It is slim but still a majority and so yes they can control the narrative to a large degree. That said, simply being against or opposed only goes so far. They (Dems) need to offer a reasonable path forward and since they are in the minority it will have to be bipartisan. But it is a positive step in the right direction. It gives people a chance to be “for” something positive and bipartisan.

I would take the same approach on things like debt and deficit. There may be conservative boondoggles/programs the Dems would cut or eliminate as wasteful. I would force them to defend those positions. Both sides need to set priorities.

The public supports legal immigration and the public supports cutting wasteful spending and inefficiencies. If I were on the Dem side, I would not cede that territory entirely to the GOP. Dems can be seen as leading on these issues even though they are in the minority for the time being. That will not always be the case.

We have two parties for a reason. I support two parties. Heathy respectful give and take yields better results. We need to get back there.

The Democrats aren't going to support a fascist Republican party and Trump administration. The GOP and Trump need to correct their behavior first and start doing things within the bounds of the constitution. They can start by following court orders, stop lying in court, and stopping the illegal overreach by DOGE. It would help if people like yourself held them accountable, but you're way too focused on Democrats. Who currently have no power.