Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez

[_Chap]

In fact, it is not at all clear that the comparison drawn by Ocasio-Cortez is as out of place as some of her critics suggest.

Perhaps as importantly, comparing the Trump admin's policy of curtailing and pushing back against would be refugees from dangerous circumstances, starting with its efforts to shut down refugees from Syria, has extensively been compared to the US's shameful period of turning back Jewish refugees in the 1930's. This isn't some idea that was come up by Ocasio-Cortez or a small group of hardcore leftists. It's a common criticism that she's citing. She's just a magnet for press attention.

I'm glad to hear that other people are making this obvious point. But I was quite surprised not to have seen it brought up here. I belong (by marriage) to a family with many a branch missing from its family tree, and it is sad to see people shouting 'Holocaust! Holocaust!' to score points off Ocasio-Cortez when they all too obviously don't know diddly-squat about the actual history of the attempted murder of European Jewry.

Just to check, does anybody reading this thread want to try to revive the notion that the Jewish refugees from Germany who managed to make it to the US in the late 1930s (despite 83% of Americans not wanting them) were 'fleeing the holocaust?'.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Asylum seekers had their children stripped from them and thrown in internment camps. So, worse than criminals, maybe?

As usual, EA completely misses the point, and goes off on some sort of odd tangent where he believes he's being the smartest one around.

Cool.

- Doc

[Guest]

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/02 ... heir-kids/

Asylum seekers had their children stripped from them and thrown in internment camps.

Well, the link you post does rather seem to back up what you say. The woman in question had entered legally, requested asylum, and had committed no crime. But all the same she was separated from her children, who were held in a separate facility from her. As the judge in this case said: “The parent has committed no crime, ... [Ms. L] is an example of this family separation practice expanding beyond its lawful reach, and she is not alone.”

After years of threats and harassment from gangs and local police in her hometown of Mazatenango, Sandy fled with her four kids and attempted to enter the U.S. legally in May. She requested asylum for her and her children at an international bridge connecting Brownsville and Matamoros, Mexico.

The bridge is an official port of entry into the U.S., and Sessions himself has encouraged migrant families to cross the border this way — rather than crossing the border illegally — in order to avoid being separated.

But Sandy was separated from her children — all young boys, one just a few months old — anyway. (The Tribune is not publishing her full name, her kids' names, and certain details about the threats she faced in Guatemala because of their sensitive nature.)

Why did this happen to Sandy if she hadn't committed a crime?

Spokesmen for ICE and Customs and Border Protection declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But the court documents in a case called Ms. L vs. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that this happened to dozens of others. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in February, mentions at least 40 other examples of families who were separated at the border, even though they weren't prosecuted for crossing illegally. Ms. L and her young daughter presented themselves to border agents at a bridge between Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego last year and were separated anyway.

The court documents show that the Trump administration had a difficult time explaining exactly why Ms. L and her daughter, referred to as S.S., were separated in the first place — and why they remained apart for more than four months.

In past statements, the government has claimed it would only separate families at ports of entry if it's not sure of the familial relationship, or is worried about issues like child abuse.

Government lawyers initially argued that they had trouble finding "acceptable proof" that "Ms L is S.S.'s biological mother as she alleges." Officials didn't have a birth certificate, and they couldn't reach the girl's father. But as soon as the child's attorney insisted on a DNA test, the results showed that the two were in fact related.

So the government offered another argument for the separation: ICE decided to detain Ms. L in a California immigration detention center that's only set up for adults. As a result, government lawyers wrote, S.S. had "no parent or legal guardian in the United States ... available to provide care and physical custody." As for placing Ms. L and her child in a family detention center that is set up to house parents and kids together, lawyers had argued that "there is limited space available."

Later, the government offered still another argument: The family detention centers (referred to by ICE as family residential centers, or FRCs) "have an open plan layout, and allow free movement throughout the facilities. Because of this ICE must consider not only whether any adult considered for detention in an ICE FRC may pose a danger to his or her child, but also whether any adult or child being considered for such placement might pose a danger to others in the facility."

Responding to the government in court documents, ACLU lawyers argued that the Trump administration ultimately couldn't provide a good reason for separating Ms. L from her child. "Defendants have been forced to offer a series of shifting rationales to retroactively justify its unprecedented practice," they wrote.

Federal judge Dana Sabraw didn't appear to buy the government's rationales, either. “The parent has committed no crime,” he pointed out in a June ruling, adding that Ms. L "is an example of this family separation practice expanding beyond its lawful reach, and she is not alone.”

[Edited for formatting]

[_Gray Ghost]

Not sure what this has to do with the American right wing. Selling out our country to foreign adversaries is not okay. Do you disagree?

Of course not. It wasn't ok when Democrats were dancing with the Communists because they were only a half step away from being Socialists themselves, and it's not ok that the Republicans are getting in bed with autocratic nationalists because, well, there you go.

- Doc

Great. Patriots on the left and right voted straight Democratic in 2018. The GOP has become the anti-American party.

[_canpakes]

Chap wrote:
In fact, it is not at all clear that the comparison drawn by Ocasio-Cortez is as out of place as some of her critics suggest.

I’d suppose that it’s no worse than Trump referring to himself as the subject of a ‘witch hunt’, given the historical reality of what actual witch hunts were all about, along with their often unfortunate and permanent outcome.

[_Chap]

Chap wrote:
In fact, it is not at all clear that the comparison drawn by Ocasio-Cortez is as out of place as some of her critics suggest.

I’d suppose that it’s no worse than Trump referring to himself as the subject of a ‘witch hunt’, given the historical reality of what actual witch hunts were all about, along with their often unfortunate and permanent outcome.

I should, I suppose apologise for using understatement. I know it can be confusing.

In fact, given the highly hostile and prejudicial statements that were made in the US about Jewish would-be immigrants seeking to flee persecution (but by no means attempted mass murder at that time) by the Nazis in 1930s Germany, I think that when she said

"Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime. It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America."

her comparison was reasonably apposite. Those Jews were, if anything, even more unwelcome in the US than are the current applicants for asylum coming from Central America.

[_canpakes]

I should, I suppose apologise for using understatement. I know it can be confusing.

As well, I should have followed my own comment with a wink emoji. But given the current circus-like political environment continually promoted by Trump, I’ve been overusing that prop. : ) < (and that one).

[_Chap]

I should, I suppose apologise for using understatement. I know it can be confusing.

As well, I should have followed my own comment with a wink emoji. But given the current circus-like political environment continually promoted by Trump, I’ve been overusing that prop. : ) < (and that one).

[_honorentheos]

and i was unable to find the part where the US had a policy which states that seeking asylum is a crime, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is claiming.

Asylum seekers are being treated as criminals.

You do realize when you type things like that you're just the Leftist side of the same crazy coin, don't you?

Don't answer. I already know what's coming if you do.

- Doc

I also don't get what you are saying, Cam. Trump attempted to change immigration law and make it illegal by executive rule to seek asylum through any other means than at a customs check point. This move was blocked by a judge because the law was passed by Congress and it's the President's job to enforce it or maneuver around it but not make new laws, which basic understanding of the Constitution was criticized by Trump which then drew Chief Justice Roberts to stand up in support of justices against the claim the Ninth Circuit was under the control of "Obama judges". This isn't some crazy ideological issue. Trump is an anti-Constitutional authoritarian when it comes to the criminal justice system and EA's comment was on point.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Honor,

People are attempting to game the system. According to politifact:

"In 2007, 5,171 people claimed credible fear and had their cases reviewed.

In 2016, it was 91,786."

Seeking asylum was never meant for people to escape a crappy economic or 'gang' situation. It was for political dissidents, or people targeted by governments for whatever ideological crime they stood accused of harboring. The gamesmanship demonstrated by Leftists, from organizing this ridiculous crap show to claiming everything from genocide to, I dunno, fill in the blank with nonsensical wild eyed claims are countered by facts:

https://Twitter.com/i/status/1067163239853760512

"From what we've seen, the majority are actually men and some of these men have not articulated that need for asylum."

Wanting a better life is fine, and I've articulated my take on a common sense solution for immigration various times, so I don't feel the need to speak to that again. And finally, you have:

... a spokesman for Tijuana's Health Department told Fox News.

There are three confirmed cases of tuberculosis, four cases of HIV/AIDS and four separate cases of chickenpox, the spokesman said.

At least 101 migrants have lice and multiple instances of skin infections, the department’s data shows.

There’s also a threat of Hepatitis outbreak due to unsanitary conditions, the spokesman said. The thousands of migrants are being sheltered at the Benito Juarez Sports Complex near the San Ysidro U.S.-Mexico Port of Entry, despite the place being capable of providing for 1,000 people.

Yeah, no thanks. And even if we were to bring them inside the border to be held at a camp to hear their asylum claims I'm fairly certain the Left would be crybullying up a storm about their deplorable living conditions as they receive free shelter, food, medical attention, education, and whatever else we're throwing at them that doesn't make any sense.

The cost to the taxpayer, whether it's sending troops to the border for a photo op or paying for families to stay at abandoned shopping centers is nuts. And it's the result of the craziness when you can't satisfy anyone. And, in my opinion, if we can't satisfy the Left or the Right then I just say lock the border down, continue to process people with the manpower we have, and life continues to be unfair for those unfortunate souls who happened to be born in another country.

As an aside, those countries in Central America ought to be paradises. Oceans on both sides, strategically situated between North and South America. And they'll never get their crap together. One can blame banana companies all they want, but at some point they're responsible to fix themselves.

- Doc