I don’t know that the media could cover it any more than they already have in the last 72 hours.
Exactly.
Meanwhile the head of DHS repeated on Sunday that domestic terrorism is *STILL* the greatest threat facing America, and despite at least two mass shootings in the last week, conservatives are more concerned w/ Latinos seeking asylum or trying to make a better life for themselves than they are w/ the threats coming from within our own borders.
Other than multiple mass shootings, it is all they've been talking about since the covid relief bill passed.
Compared to the coverage it got a few years ago. I don't see nearly as many saying the conditions are poor, or calling it cages, even though that hasn't really changed. The media is told they can't see inside and they say ok and walk away. Would they have done that a year ago? They would have found a way in and report what is happening. So yes, compared to what was going on with the coverage the last 4 years, this is pretty much a nothingburger to them. They ask a couple questions, they as the press sec if she'll call it a crisis, and when she says "no its not a crisis, its a challenge" they accept that answer. If Trump was president this would be a bigger story than it is, with a lot more humanitarian accusations being thrown around that what we're seeing. I see more media outrage over the upsets of March Madness that what is going on at the border.
Literally every Sunday morning show lead with it. All of them. The Sunday morning shows drive the news. All cable news stations were devoting a ton of time to it as well. But, in case you haven't noticed there are some other things happening. Covid Relief. Mass Shooting in Atlanta. Mass Shooting in Boulder. I realize Fox News devoted basically zero time to the Boulder shooting last night (and I am not wildly speculating like you always do--I actually tuned in last night) but gun control and mass shootings are kinda sorta an enormous issue in this country.
I know it seems like I give you a hard time a lot, but you always do this. Just winging arguments without knowing about the subject. Saying the media is silent about it when the exact opposite is true really hurts whatever point you are trying to convey.
Part of me feels like you just want the media to be silent so you can push a certain narrative. Bottom line is that is just untrue. Sorry.
I think you give me a hard time because most often your arguments are unrelated to my comments. Like when I said Trump didn't steal the inauguration day, you went on some weird, borderline obsessive, 4-page rant about my lack of expertise on farewell ceremonies and if 21-gun salutes are normal when all i commented on was the coverage of the inauguration. The media was only 1 group I mentioned. You really think the media is treating Biden the same way they would be treating Trump? You really think they would accept covid as an excuse to not be allowed in and document what is going on inside? You really think they would accept the repeated answers of "its a challenge, not a crisis" and not push back on that lame response? I admitted they weren't silent, that was a mistake on my part. But the difference is still night and day. You think for one minute this could go on and Trump would get away without letting the media in to see what is going on first hand? That facilities could be at 700% capacity and still nothing? Where's the accusations of mistreating children because it is over crowded, because they have aluminum blankets, or being forced to drink toilet water? I haven't heard one person, from the left or the right, call him racist or uncaring over this. Separating children aside and just focusing on conditions (because that was still a big deal and talking point), how is anything Trump did worse?
I try to admit when I'm wrong. HFD pointed out my incorrect use of open border, I admitted that. I admitted the media iisnt silent, but more they are not equally outraged. Part of that is often I'm in a rush when I respond and don't take the time to proofread (which is probably obvious). But the point is there, I think the media and politicians are being softer with this crisis. When they start accusing Biden of racism because of how he is allowing these people to be treated I'll change my mind. Or claim they are drinking out of the toilet, or that they are being treated as sub-human.
Post edited by mace1229 on
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,312
But why would even start by saying the media is silent? Don’t you see how making such an obviously false assertion takes away from your credibility?
I think the media is being fair so far. It’s tough to compare because the last president and his administration was such a dumpster fire but the fact that they have given so much attention to this border issue shows that they’re being fair.
I’d watch less Fox News. Your initially post that I responded to sounded like a guy who heard Sean Hannity say something about the media and then you just ran with it. The media is covering the border crisis extensively.
Do you have a problem with Fox barely even mentioning a mass shooting that killed ten people last night? If we’re going to talk about the media in general, there’s your issue, buddy.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,312
I try to admit when I'm wrong. HFD pointed out my incorrect use of open border, I admitted that. I admitted the media iisnt silent, but more they are not equally outraged. Part of that is often I'm in a rush when I respond and don't take the time to proofread (which is probably obvious). But the point is there, I think the media and politicians are being softer with this crisis. When they start accusing Biden of racism because of how he is allowing these people to be treated I'll change my mind.
So the media needs to call Biden a racist and things will be equal to you?
Other than multiple mass shootings, it is all they've been talking about since the covid relief bill passed.
Compared to the coverage it got a few years ago. I don't see nearly as many saying the conditions are poor, or calling it cages, even though that hasn't really changed. The media is told they can't see inside and they say ok and walk away. Would they have done that a year ago? They would have found a way in and report what is happening. So yes, compared to what was going on with the coverage the last 4 years, this is pretty much a nothingburger to them. They ask a couple questions, they as the press sec if she'll call it a crisis, and when she says "no its not a crisis, its a challenge" they accept that answer. If Trump was president this would be a bigger story than it is, with a lot more humanitarian accusations being thrown around that what we're seeing. I see more media outrage over the upsets of March Madness that what is going on at the border.
Literally every Sunday morning show lead with it. All of them. The Sunday morning shows drive the news. All cable news stations were devoting a ton of time to it as well. But, in case you haven't noticed there are some other things happening. Covid Relief. Mass Shooting in Atlanta. Mass Shooting in Boulder. I realize Fox News devoted basically zero time to the Boulder shooting last night (and I am not wildly speculating like you always do--I actually tuned in last night) but gun control and mass shootings are kinda sorta an enormous issue in this country.
I know it seems like I give you a hard time a lot, but you always do this. Just winging arguments without knowing about the subject. Saying the media is silent about it when the exact opposite is true really hurts whatever point you are trying to convey.
Part of me feels like you just want the media to be silent so you can push a certain narrative. Bottom line is that is just untrue. Sorry.
I think you give me a hard time because most often your arguments are unrelated to my comments. Like when I said Trump didn't steal the inauguration day, you went on some weird, borderline obsessive, 4-page rant about my lack of expertise on farewell ceremonies and if 21-gun salutes are normal when all i commented on was the coverage of the inauguration. The media was only 1 group I mentioned. You really think the media is treating Biden the same way they would be treating Trump? You really think they would accept covid as an excuse to not be allowed in and document what is going on inside? You really think they would accept the repeated answers of "its a challenge, not a crisis" and not push back on that lame response? I admitted they weren't silent, that was a mistake on my part. But the difference is still night and day. You think for one minute this could go on and Trump would get away without letting the media in to see what is going on first hand? That facilities could be at 700% capacity and still nothing? Where's the accusations of mistreating children because it is over crowded, because they have aluminum blankets, or being forced to drink toilet water? I haven't heard one person, from the left or the right, call him racist or uncaring over this. Separating children aside and just focusing on conditions (because that was still a big deal and talking point), how is anything Trump did worse?
Biden has yet to refer to these immigrants across the board as rapists, murderers or drug dealers for starters, at least as far as I'm aware; and to the extent of my knowledge, he's not making up stories about MS13 to over exaggerate the threat of Mexican street gangs in the US, is he?
Seriously though, I can't be the only one who remembers when trump ridiculously claimed to have seen an entire American city liberated from MS13, can I?
Were you asleep when trump said all that shit? Or are you conveniently misremembering?
& your assertion that the media accepts this as a challenge instead of a crisis is destroyed by the Monday morning news broadcasts literally referring to it as a crisis. (see above)
But why would even start by saying the media is silent? Don’t you see how making such an obviously false assertion takes away from your credibility?
I think the media is being fair so far. It’s tough to compare because the last president and his administration was such a dumpster fire but the fact that they have given so much attention to this border issue shows that they’re being fair.
I’d watch less Fox News. Your initially post that I responded to sounded like a guy who heard Sean Hannity say something about the media and then you just ran with it. The media is covering the border crisis extensively.
Do you have a problem with Fox barely even mentioning a mass shooting that killed ten people last night? If we’re going to talk about the media in general, there’s your issue, buddy.
I didn't watch Fox last night. Funny Fox was mentioned a few times in the last 2 pages, but not once by me. Thats the common counter-point, "stop watching Fox." Hannity is unbearable, Laura is even worse. Tucker can be entertaining in small doses, but he mischaracterizes others too much to be very informative. I watched Below Deck - Sailing and then about an hour of local news. So unless a lot of the attitude changed on Monday I have to disagree. This crisis is Biden's fault, his policies encouraged it and he continues to allow it. They may use the word crisis, but they aren't blaming him for the over crowded conditions or the record number of children crossing alone. The conditions are the same, probably even worse than before, but the storyline has changed. Yes, until they call him inhumane, blame him for what these kids go through, say that Biden is allowing the mistreatment of migrant children, then the coverage is not equal. If you have a story where mainstream media is saying Biden has encouraged and allowed this to happen and says kids are forced to live in sub-human conditions because of Biden, then I would like to see that. So far I haven't heard anything close to that. They replaced chain link fencing for plexi glass in the few leaked photos, and suddenly they aren't cages and the conditions are fine.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,312
But why would even start by saying the media is silent? Don’t you see how making such an obviously false assertion takes away from your credibility?
I think the media is being fair so far. It’s tough to compare because the last president and his administration was such a dumpster fire but the fact that they have given so much attention to this border issue shows that they’re being fair.
I’d watch less Fox News. Your initially post that I responded to sounded like a guy who heard Sean Hannity say something about the media and then you just ran with it. The media is covering the border crisis extensively.
Do you have a problem with Fox barely even mentioning a mass shooting that killed ten people last night? If we’re going to talk about the media in general, there’s your issue, buddy.
I didn't watch Fox last night. Funny Fox was mentioned a few times in the last 2 pages, but not once by me. Thats the common counter-point, "stop watching Fox." Hannity is unbearable, Laura is even worse. Tucker can be entertaining in small doses, but he mischaracterizes others too much to be very informative. I watched Below Deck - Sailing and then about an hour of local news. So unless a lot of the attitude changed on Monday I have to disagree. This crisis is Biden's fault, his policies encouraged it and he continues to allow it. They may use the word crisis, but they aren't blaming him for the over crowded conditions or the record number of children crossing alone. The conditions are the same, probably even worse than before, but the storyline has changed. Yes, until they call him inhumane, blame him for what these kids go through, say that Biden is allowing the mistreatment of migrant children, then the coverage is not equal. If you have a story where mainstream media is saying Biden has encouraged and allowed this to happen and says kids are forced to live in sub-human conditions because of Biden, then I would like to see that. So far I haven't heard anything close to that. They replaced chain link fencing for plexi glass in the few leaked photos, and suddenly they aren't cages and the conditions are fine.
Gee, I wonder why I brought up Fox? You were incorrectly critiquing the media for not covering something they clearly are. Meanwhile the thing you complained about actually happened last night as Fox almost completely ignored a mass shooting that killed ten people.
Context is everything. Can’t ignore it: Trump has a 40+ year record of saying and doing racist things. Biden does not.
Trump’s cabinet was made up of almost entirely white men. Biden’s administration is the most diverse in the history of the country.
Therein lies your answer as to why only one of them was called a racist.
We have a grown up in the Oval Office. It is a refreshing change. I’m pretty confident he’ll handle this.
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
It's super ironic that of all the leaders in the last 25 years or so, GW was probably the one that understood the immigration issue and could have really helped fix it if his own party didn't hold him back.
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Big difference between being a senator, or even VP, and being the president.
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Big difference between being a senator, or even VP, and being the president.
The job yes, the person, nope. Maybe he will fake it enough though to get something done. The lack of any real work in this area is one of the biggest travesties of the american political world.
Fundamental non-understanding of how government works. Dems have passed bills, in both houses when they had control of one or the other. Repubs have had their heads up their ass, particularly when they controlled the house, senate and oval.
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Big difference between being a senator, or even VP, and being the president.
The job yes, the person, nope. Maybe he will fake it enough though to get something done. The lack of any real work in this area is one of the biggest travesties of the american political world.
You think a senator holds the same power and bully pulpit as the president? Can you think of any senator that was as effectual as a senator as President? Kennedy, Nixon, Obama?
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
Here I sit wondering what we all can do to help these poor people, refugees from their own countries...seeking asylum because the conditions at home are unbearable, unlivable, dangerous and wretched. I know they don't want to leave their homes...who would unless it was a choice they were driven to make. I know when our satellites look down at the earth, there are no lines. It's a planet and unless we take care of each other, what are we? I don't know the answers but there are a lot of smart people who could find some.
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Biden's changes created this, very few admit that ( I don't know why, it is obvious), I don't expect him to solve it any time soon. I hope I am wrong on that last point.
What were Biden's changes that "created this?" And who created POOTWH's "crisis?" Oh right, Hillary and Obama. From October 30,2020. Where was the outrage and demand for accountability then?
500,000 Kids, 30 Million Hours: Trump’s Vast Expansion of Child Detention
U.S. Customs and Border Protection carried out almost half a million child detentions during the Trump administration, data shows. More kids were held for 72 hours or more.
When U.S. Customs and Border Protection holds migrant children in custody, the child’s detention is supposed to be safe and short. That’s true whether the child is with a parent or without one.
But new data shows that over the last four years, detention times lengthened as the number of children held at the border soared to almost half a million. The detentions, which include both unaccompanied children and children with their families, peaked last year at over 300,000, with 40 percent held longer than the 72-hour limit set by a patchwork of legislation and a court settlement.
“The government regularly violated the 72-hour rule,” said Dr. Bill O. Hing, a University of San Francisco law professor and immigration lawyer who was part of an inspection group touring border stations in the summer of 2019 at the height of the crisis. Hing said he witnessed minors being held for increasingly long times in unsafe facilities designed to hold adults, not children and babies.
The rising numbers of children detained at the border with one or more family members have received relatively little attention. Yet at the same time that detentions of unaccompanied minors were skyrocketing, so were detentions of children who arrived with families, government data shows. The federal government carried out almost 40,000 detentions of children with families in 2014; last year, that shot up to almost 250,000.
“72 hours in a cage with concrete floors and freezing temperatures and terrible conditions is 72 hours too many for—honestly in my view, for anyone,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington and vice-chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. “But particularly for children, regardless of if they're with their families or unaccompanied.”
An undocumented migrant child’s path into the U.S. often begins with getting booked into a Border Patrol station somewhere along the border. Customs and Border Protection then transfers children traveling without a parent to the Office of Refugee Resettlement—which reports to a different agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The staff there works to place them with appropriate family members or other sponsors. Many children traveling with family get transferred to ICE family detention facilities, where they are either released pending hearings or wait to be processed.
For unaccompanied children, a legal 72-hour limit is set on their initial custody in Customs and Border Protection by the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. For children who arrive with family members, the same limit is technically required by a 1997 settlement agreement known as Flores—unless there is an influx of minors, defined at the time as 130 children at the border. With the U.S. today routinely detaining thousands of children on a given day, the 72-hour Flores protection for children arriving with parents has not applied for years.
Regardless, together these documents require the federal government to provide basic standards of care for all children—like hot meals, fresh water, clean clothes and a quick exit from holding facilities into the care of qualified sponsors.
A series of policy shifts by the Trump administration have made these obligations harder to meet. In early 2018, the federal government increased vetting requirements for potential sponsors, and required more information sharing about sponsors with ICE. As a result, it took longer and longer to place unaccompanied children with appropriate sponsors, and to find sponsors—some of whom might be undocumented themselves—willing to risk coming forward to claim them. For children who arrived with a parent, a crackdown on who qualifies for asylum on the basis of credible fear of domestic violence, gangs and other threats led to high rates of denial, leaving these children stuck in ICE family detention centers with their parents.
With a growing number of children seeking refuge in the U.S., the policies led to a pile-up of children in border detention centers that were never designed to care for them.
“The back-ups at CBP (Customs and Border Protection) in 2019 should have been preventable,” said Mark Greenberg, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, where he oversaw the office that provides care for unaccompanied minors at the border. “The surge didn’t happen overnight, and there were clear warning signs about the need to take action earlier to prevent it.”
At the height of the crisis in 2019, Congress passed a bill releasing $4.6 billion in emergency funds to federal agencies handling migrants. The measure passed over the objections of some lawmakers who saw it as further support for the harsh immigration policies that had contributed to the crisis in the first place.
“[The administration] was glad there was a surge,” said Peter Schey, an immigration lawyer who leads litigation efforts for the Flores agreement. “[They were] happy to pick up another billion dollars in federal taxpayers’ money to engage in enforcement, most of it targeted against children.”
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that promotes greater restrictions on immigration, disagrees that the policies were designed to make the process difficult for children. She believes the vetting policies were created to protect migrant children from falling into the hands of unqualified sponsors.
“Your perspective on this issue depends on whether your priority is to get these kids out of custody and into the hands of sponsors as quickly as possible,” she said, “or if the welfare of the child is the priority, even if it means keeping them in CBP custody for longer.”
The welfare of children in Border Patrol custody has been the subject of intense scrutiny. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security’s own internal watchdog issued a report citing lengthy stays and overcrowding. The report described “limited access” to a change of clothes and hot meals, and children kept in “cells” for impermissible lengths of time.
These problems stretch back years. Under the Obama administration, reports of unsafe and unsanitary conditions began circulating as the immigration system struggled to accommodate rapidly growing numbers of migrants at the border. In 2014, almost 108,000 children arrived, more than double the previous year. There wasn’t enough space to house them all, so the Department of Homeland Security set up a makeshift holding facility using chain-link fencing inside an industrial warehouse. Since then, critics have decried the conditions as inhumane and called for improvements.
“The Trump administration knew they were adopting a growing system,” said Jennifer Podkul, vice president of policy at Kids in Need of Defense, a legal advocacy group. “But instead of developing proper standards of care, they kept kids detained for longer periods of time and separated them from their families.”
In 2018, President Trump promised to “terminate” the Flores agreement, calling it a “selling point” for smugglers who exploit children for profit. In a letter to Congress the following year, he listed “terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement” as the one of the most “pressing legal changes” to secure U.S. borders. But Flores can’t be terminated with a stroke of the president’s pen.
Under the terms of the agreement, the federal government must propose policies that substantially mirror the protections in the settlement and must then be approved by the court. The government was supposed to replace the settlement with regulations within a few years. Twenty-four years and four presidents later, no such policies have been enacted.
The administration attempted to eliminate the agreement’s requirements by drafting new regulations in 2019. Judge Dolly Gee, the federal district judge overseeing Flores, rejected the proposal, stating in its decision that the policies “do not implement the Flores Agreement, they intentionally subvert it.” The Trump administration appealed the rejection to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision is still pending.
In recent months, holding facilities have become less cramped and the stays shorter. That is largely because in March 2020, President Trump drastically restricted land border crossings by invoking the 1944 Public Health Service Act, authorizing the U.S. government to turn away people and goods at the border on public health grounds. Since then, authorities have expelled thousands of children and families.
If and when the borders fully reopen, the questions of appropriate and enforceable standards will remain. Some experts and lawmakers see the need for a complete overhaul of the immigration system to avoid repeating the problems of the last two years.
“There are many things we can do,” said Jayapal, who is calling for a large scale reform package that would bolster family case management and supportive services, broaden protections for migrant children and strengthen accountability measures for agencies responsible for their care and custody. She advocates ending detention altogether for families, children and the vast majority of other migrants who pose little safety risk to the community.
“We need to rethink our border policies completely,” she said. “We should not be detaining kids.”
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Big difference between being a senator, or even VP, and being the president.
The job yes, the person, nope. Maybe he will fake it enough though to get something done. The lack of any real work in this area is one of the biggest travesties of the american political world.
You think a senator holds the same power and bully pulpit as the president? Can you think of any senator that was as effectual as a senator as President? Kennedy, Nixon, Obama?
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Big difference between being a senator, or even VP, and being the president.
The job yes, the person, nope. Maybe he will fake it enough though to get something done. The lack of any real work in this area is one of the biggest travesties of the american political world.
You think a senator holds the same power and bully pulpit as the president? Can you think of any senator that was as effectual as a senator as President? Kennedy, Nixon, Obama?
Yeah clearly that’s what I think.
Then I don't understand your point. Senators are one of 565. How can you say that he didn't do anything in 40 years and therefore he won't as President? I'm pointing out clear historical evidence that a senator is more effective when they become president. Why wouldn't Biden follow that pattern,
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Big difference between being a senator, or even VP, and being the president.
The job yes, the person, nope. Maybe he will fake it enough though to get something done. The lack of any real work in this area is one of the biggest travesties of the american political world.
You think a senator holds the same power and bully pulpit as the president? Can you think of any senator that was as effectual as a senator as President? Kennedy, Nixon, Obama?
Yeah clearly that’s what I think.
Then I don't understand your point. Senators are one of 565. How can you say that he didn't do anything in 40 years and therefore he won't as President? I'm pointing out clear historical evidence that a senator is more effective when they become president. Why wouldn't Biden follow that pattern,
Ive been pretty clear, especially in the thread about immigration. No one in Washington has any desire to actually solve this issue. Biden has been in Washington since...well since washington almost. He has no desire to solve it.
Why do you have any confidence that a guy that has been in Washington for 450 years and been part of the problem re:immigration is suddenly going to fix it?
Big difference between being a senator, or even VP, and being the president.
The job yes, the person, nope. Maybe he will fake it enough though to get something done. The lack of any real work in this area is one of the biggest travesties of the american political world.
You think a senator holds the same power and bully pulpit as the president? Can you think of any senator that was as effectual as a senator as President? Kennedy, Nixon, Obama?
Yeah clearly that’s what I think.
Then I don't understand your point. Senators are one of 565. How can you say that he didn't do anything in 40 years and therefore he won't as President? I'm pointing out clear historical evidence that a senator is more effective when they become president. Why wouldn't Biden follow that pattern,
Ive been pretty clear, especially in the thread about immigration. No one in Washington has any desire to actually solve this issue. Biden has been in Washington since...well since washington almost. He has no desire to solve it.
Why wouldn't Biden want to solve the problem? What is he gaining by letting a border and humanitarian crisis continue?
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
maybe because hillary is a retired, private citizen and kamala is the actual vice president? to me, the actual sitting vice president is a bigger "get" than someone who has been for the most part out of public life since 2017, but that is just me.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
Considering Bill's checkered history with women and allegations of sexual harassment, his inclusion on this seems sketchy as well.
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
Wow, surprised they didn’t get Harvey Weinstein to keynote one of these!
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
maybe because hillary is a retired, private citizen and kamala is the actual vice president? to me, the actual sitting vice president is a bigger "get" than someone who has been for the most part out of public life since 2017, but that is just me.
lol, talk about missing the point. Harris should be sitting down with Hillary to discuss empowering women. Not with sexual miscreant Bill.
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
maybe because hillary is a retired, private citizen and kamala is the actual vice president? to me, the actual sitting vice president is a bigger "get" than someone who has been for the most part out of public life since 2017, but that is just me.
lol, talk about missing the point. Harris should be sitting down with Hillary to discuss empowering women. Not with sexual miscreant Bill.
Huh. I guess the CGF never thought about that. Or maybe HRC had a different commitment. This really makes me angry. Not ta suit level angry, but very angry. Kamala clearly doesn't understand the plight of women
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
maybe because hillary is a retired, private citizen and kamala is the actual vice president? to me, the actual sitting vice president is a bigger "get" than someone who has been for the most part out of public life since 2017, but that is just me.
lol, talk about missing the point. Harris should be sitting down with Hillary to discuss empowering women. Not with sexual miscreant Bill.
Agreed.
I wish dems could cut the cord with the Clintons. I was a fan of his when he was in office, but at this point they need to fade into the background.
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
maybe because hillary is a retired, private citizen and kamala is the actual vice president? to me, the actual sitting vice president is a bigger "get" than someone who has been for the most part out of public life since 2017, but that is just me.
lol, talk about missing the point. Harris should be sitting down with Hillary to discuss empowering women. Not with sexual miscreant Bill.
Agreed.
I wish dems could cut the cord with the Clintons. I was a fan of his when he was in office, but at this point they need to fade into the background.
Comments
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/544211-dhs-chief-calls-domestic-extremism-greatest-terror-threat-us-faces
Weird how that works, huh?
The media was only 1 group I mentioned. You really think the media is treating Biden the same way they would be treating Trump? You really think they would accept covid as an excuse to not be allowed in and document what is going on inside? You really think they would accept the repeated answers of "its a challenge, not a crisis" and not push back on that lame response?
I admitted they weren't silent, that was a mistake on my part. But the difference is still night and day. You think for one minute this could go on and Trump would get away without letting the media in to see what is going on first hand? That facilities could be at 700% capacity and still nothing? Where's the accusations of mistreating children because it is over crowded, because they have aluminum blankets, or being forced to drink toilet water? I haven't heard one person, from the left or the right, call him racist or uncaring over this. Separating children aside and just focusing on conditions (because that was still a big deal and talking point), how is anything Trump did worse?
I think the media is being fair so far. It’s tough to compare because the last president and his administration was such a dumpster fire but the fact that they have given so much attention to this border issue shows that they’re being fair.
Jesus...
Seriously though, I can't be the only one who remembers when trump ridiculously claimed to have seen an entire American city liberated from MS13, can I?
Were you asleep when trump said all that shit? Or are you conveniently misremembering?
& your assertion that the media accepts this as a challenge instead of a crisis is destroyed by the Monday morning news broadcasts literally referring to it as a crisis. (see above)
Hannity is unbearable, Laura is even worse. Tucker can be entertaining in small doses, but he mischaracterizes others too much to be very informative. I watched Below Deck - Sailing and then about an hour of local news. So unless a lot of the attitude changed on Monday I have to disagree. This crisis is Biden's fault, his policies encouraged it and he continues to allow it. They may use the word crisis, but they aren't blaming him for the over crowded conditions or the record number of children crossing alone. The conditions are the same, probably even worse than before, but the storyline has changed.
Yes, until they call him inhumane, blame him for what these kids go through, say that Biden is allowing the mistreatment of migrant children, then the coverage is not equal. If you have a story where mainstream media is saying Biden has encouraged and allowed this to happen and says kids are forced to live in sub-human conditions because of Biden, then I would like to see that. So far I haven't heard anything close to that. They replaced chain link fencing for plexi glass in the few leaked photos, and suddenly they aren't cages and the conditions are fine.
You were incorrectly critiquing the media for not covering something they clearly are. Meanwhile the thing you complained about actually happened last night as Fox almost completely ignored a mass shooting that killed ten people.
Trump has a 40+ year record of saying and doing racist things. Biden does not.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
500,000 Kids, 30 Million Hours: Trump’s Vast Expansion of Child Detention
U.S. Customs and Border Protection carried out almost half a million child detentions during the Trump administration, data shows. More kids were held for 72 hours or more.
When U.S. Customs and Border Protection holds migrant children in custody, the child’s detention is supposed to be safe and short. That’s true whether the child is with a parent or without one.
But new data shows that over the last four years, detention times lengthened as the number of children held at the border soared to almost half a million. The detentions, which include both unaccompanied children and children with their families, peaked last year at over 300,000, with 40 percent held longer than the 72-hour limit set by a patchwork of legislation and a court settlement.
“The government regularly violated the 72-hour rule,” said Dr. Bill O. Hing, a University of San Francisco law professor and immigration lawyer who was part of an inspection group touring border stations in the summer of 2019 at the height of the crisis. Hing said he witnessed minors being held for increasingly long times in unsafe facilities designed to hold adults, not children and babies.
The rising numbers of children detained at the border with one or more family members have received relatively little attention. Yet at the same time that detentions of unaccompanied minors were skyrocketing, so were detentions of children who arrived with families, government data shows. The federal government carried out almost 40,000 detentions of children with families in 2014; last year, that shot up to almost 250,000.
“72 hours in a cage with concrete floors and freezing temperatures and terrible conditions is 72 hours too many for—honestly in my view, for anyone,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington and vice-chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. “But particularly for children, regardless of if they're with their families or unaccompanied.”
An undocumented migrant child’s path into the U.S. often begins with getting booked into a Border Patrol station somewhere along the border. Customs and Border Protection then transfers children traveling without a parent to the Office of Refugee Resettlement—which reports to a different agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The staff there works to place them with appropriate family members or other sponsors. Many children traveling with family get transferred to ICE family detention facilities, where they are either released pending hearings or wait to be processed.
For unaccompanied children, a legal 72-hour limit is set on their initial custody in Customs and Border Protection by the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. For children who arrive with family members, the same limit is technically required by a 1997 settlement agreement known as Flores—unless there is an influx of minors, defined at the time as 130 children at the border. With the U.S. today routinely detaining thousands of children on a given day, the 72-hour Flores protection for children arriving with parents has not applied for years.
Regardless, together these documents require the federal government to provide basic standards of care for all children—like hot meals, fresh water, clean clothes and a quick exit from holding facilities into the care of qualified sponsors.
A series of policy shifts by the Trump administration have made these obligations harder to meet. In early 2018, the federal government increased vetting requirements for potential sponsors, and required more information sharing about sponsors with ICE. As a result, it took longer and longer to place unaccompanied children with appropriate sponsors, and to find sponsors—some of whom might be undocumented themselves—willing to risk coming forward to claim them. For children who arrived with a parent, a crackdown on who qualifies for asylum on the basis of credible fear of domestic violence, gangs and other threats led to high rates of denial, leaving these children stuck in ICE family detention centers with their parents.
Along with a host of other immigration policies—including child separation and restrictions on immigration judges’ authority to handle caseloads—these steps have had a cascading effect, clogging up nearly every part of the immigration system.
With a growing number of children seeking refuge in the U.S., the policies led to a pile-up of children in border detention centers that were never designed to care for them.
“The back-ups at CBP (Customs and Border Protection) in 2019 should have been preventable,” said Mark Greenberg, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, where he oversaw the office that provides care for unaccompanied minors at the border. “The surge didn’t happen overnight, and there were clear warning signs about the need to take action earlier to prevent it.”
At the height of the crisis in 2019, Congress passed a bill releasing $4.6 billion in emergency funds to federal agencies handling migrants. The measure passed over the objections of some lawmakers who saw it as further support for the harsh immigration policies that had contributed to the crisis in the first place.
“[The administration] was glad there was a surge,” said Peter Schey, an immigration lawyer who leads litigation efforts for the Flores agreement. “[They were] happy to pick up another billion dollars in federal taxpayers’ money to engage in enforcement, most of it targeted against children.”
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that promotes greater restrictions on immigration, disagrees that the policies were designed to make the process difficult for children. She believes the vetting policies were created to protect migrant children from falling into the hands of unqualified sponsors.
“Your perspective on this issue depends on whether your priority is to get these kids out of custody and into the hands of sponsors as quickly as possible,” she said, “or if the welfare of the child is the priority, even if it means keeping them in CBP custody for longer.”
Vaughan said the policies were a response to claims that the Department of Health and Human Services was not properly vetting potential sponsors, endangering children by putting them in the hands of labor traffickers. “The additional screening was adopted out of concern for these kids,” she said.
The welfare of children in Border Patrol custody has been the subject of intense scrutiny. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security’s own internal watchdog issued a report citing lengthy stays and overcrowding. The report described “limited access” to a change of clothes and hot meals, and children kept in “cells” for impermissible lengths of time.
These problems stretch back years. Under the Obama administration, reports of unsafe and unsanitary conditions began circulating as the immigration system struggled to accommodate rapidly growing numbers of migrants at the border. In 2014, almost 108,000 children arrived, more than double the previous year. There wasn’t enough space to house them all, so the Department of Homeland Security set up a makeshift holding facility using chain-link fencing inside an industrial warehouse. Since then, critics have decried the conditions as inhumane and called for improvements.
“The Trump administration knew they were adopting a growing system,” said Jennifer Podkul, vice president of policy at Kids in Need of Defense, a legal advocacy group. “But instead of developing proper standards of care, they kept kids detained for longer periods of time and separated them from their families.”
In 2018, President Trump promised to “terminate” the Flores agreement, calling it a “selling point” for smugglers who exploit children for profit. In a letter to Congress the following year, he listed “terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement” as the one of the most “pressing legal changes” to secure U.S. borders. But Flores can’t be terminated with a stroke of the president’s pen.
Under the terms of the agreement, the federal government must propose policies that substantially mirror the protections in the settlement and must then be approved by the court. The government was supposed to replace the settlement with regulations within a few years. Twenty-four years and four presidents later, no such policies have been enacted.
The administration attempted to eliminate the agreement’s requirements by drafting new regulations in 2019. Judge Dolly Gee, the federal district judge overseeing Flores, rejected the proposal, stating in its decision that the policies “do not implement the Flores Agreement, they intentionally subvert it.” The Trump administration appealed the rejection to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision is still pending.
In recent months, holding facilities have become less cramped and the stays shorter. That is largely because in March 2020, President Trump drastically restricted land border crossings by invoking the 1944 Public Health Service Act, authorizing the U.S. government to turn away people and goods at the border on public health grounds. Since then, authorities have expelled thousands of children and families.
If and when the borders fully reopen, the questions of appropriate and enforceable standards will remain. Some experts and lawmakers see the need for a complete overhaul of the immigration system to avoid repeating the problems of the last two years.
“There are many things we can do,” said Jayapal, who is calling for a large scale reform package that would bolster family case management and supportive services, broaden protections for migrant children and strengthen accountability measures for agencies responsible for their care and custody. She advocates ending detention altogether for families, children and the vast majority of other migrants who pose little safety risk to the community.
“We need to rethink our border policies completely,” she said. “We should not be detaining kids.”
Trump Detained More Migrant Children At The Border For Far Longer Than We Knew | The Marshall Project
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Kamala Harris will host an event as part of a Clinton Global Initiative event this Friday featuring President Bill Clinton; a one-on-one discussion of ways to “empower women and girls in the U.S. and around the world” in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
lol, how fucking tone-deaf can you can be? If it's part of the Clinton Global Initiative, why not get Hillary?
Not to be outdone, Roger Goodell and the NFL are going to host a similar event next week featuring Deshaun Watson and Ben Roethlisberger.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
I wish dems could cut the cord with the Clintons. I was a fan of his when he was in office, but at this point they need to fade into the background.