Doctors Without Borders, last time I checked, is not a right wing outfit, not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers. They say that one in three women attempting to cross the southern border illegally is the victim of sexual violence.


So when Trump says that part of the crisis is a humanitarian crisis, and just about every single democrat says it's a "manufactured crisis", how is that showing any empathy or respect for the people they claim to care about.

Trump: if one in three women are getting raped, that's a crisis.

Democrat party: No it's not!

That's where we are in American politics today.

Come on really, you think Trump would get a rats ares about those women if he wasn’t struggling to fulfill his main campaign promise; that is total BS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on really, you think Trump would get a rats ares about those women if he was struggling to fulfill his main campaign promise; that is total BS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know. What I do know, is that IT DOESN'T MATTER what he genuinely thinks, in determining whether or not mass rape represents a crisis.

Jim in CT: mass rape is a crisis.

Got Stripers: No it's not, because Trump is bad.

The women getting raped, don't care whether or not Trump's concern is sincere. The inner thoughts of one man, don't determine whether or not it's a crisis.

Jesus God Almighty. Before we can say that the Holocaust is bad, do we need to know what Trump thinks about the subject? Do you hear yourself?

This is a diversionary crisis to steer attention away from the Mueller investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's Trumps comments about walls and what to do when confronted with one, perhaps the Central Americans read this.
“Don’t give up. Don’t allow it to happen. If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it, but get to the other side of that wall.”

Just more justification by his base to convince us there is a national crisis and the facts prove otherwise. I’m not saying we don’t have a problem at the border and it can be addressed with comprehensive immigration reform, which may in fact include a wall in extremely vulnerable sections, but a wall sea to shining sea is overkill to say the least. We do have far more pressing national issues, opioid addiction, affordable health care, global warming and a crumbling infrastructure; what we have on the border is a decades long “ever present” problem. The child named Donny wants his ice cream and he’s not moving until he gets it, so hundreds of thousands are loosing their first paycheck because he and his party have taken the government hostage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not find anything directly referring to rapes and refugees in Mexico but I do see concerns they have about the US deportation method and that is something Trump could remedy today if he was truly concerned about a humanitarian crisis
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/media-coverage/texas-monthly-us-practice-deporting-migrants-night-threatens
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/media-coverage/washington-post-us-sends-thousands-deportees-each-month
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/news/nighttime-deportations-us-mexico-endanger-peoples-lives

They also expressed concerns about NAFTA 2.0 and it's effect on Generic drug prices, which we should all question
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/news/msf-united-states-mexico-canada-agreement-will-hurt-public-health

Just more justification by his base to convince us there is a national crisis and the facts prove otherwise. I’m not saying we don’t have a problem at the border and it can be addressed with comprehensive immigration reform, which may in fact include a wall in extremely vulnerable sections, but a wall sea to shining sea is overkill to say the least. We do have far more pressing national issues, opioid addiction, affordable health care, global warming and a crumbling infrastructure; what we have on the border is a decades long “ever present” problem. The child named Donny wants his ice cream and he’s not moving until he gets it, so hundreds of thousands are loosing their first paycheck because he and his party have taken the government hostage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT: mass rape is a crisis.

Got Stripers: No it's not, because Trump is bad.

This is a diversionary crisis to steer attention away from the Mueller investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT: mass rape is a crisis.

Nebe: No it's not, because Trump is bad.

Jim in CT: mass rape is a crisis.

Got Stripers: No it's not, because Trump is bad.

That assertion is full of BS as is your red hat waving insisting we have a full blown national crisis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just more justification by his base to convince us there is a national crisis and the facts prove otherwise. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Show me the facts that say it's not a crisis. You can say that all day long. But where are those facts? I've seen a few families on TV who lost family members, we all know gangs are crossing over, we all know that SOME drugs are crossing over, we all know that illegals are a huge drain on our economy, and now we appear to know that the people who attempt to cross illegally, are subjected to terrible violence.

Are you saying that's not what's happening? Or do you concede that's happening, but not worthy of the word crisis? because if Trump says crisis and you say problem, that's just semantics. It's not on par with nuclear war. But it's worse than a paper cut.

I did not find anything directly referring to rapes and refugees in Mexico but I do see concerns they have about the US deportation method and that is something Trump could remedy today if he was truly concerned about a humanitarian crisis



https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/research/report-forced-flee-central-americas-northern-triangle

"Sixty-eight point three percent of the migrant and refugee populations entering Mexico reported being victims of violence during their transit toward the United States."

"Nearly one-third of the women surveyed had been sexually abused during their journey."

"MSF patients reported that the perpetrators of violence included members of gangs and other criminal organizations, as well as members of the Mexican security forces responsible for their protection."

"Sixty percent of the 166 people treated for sexual violence were raped, and 40 percent were exposed to sexual assault and other types of humiliation, including forced nudity."

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/research/report-forced-flee-central-americas-northern-triangle

"Sixty-eight point three percent of the migrant and refugee populations entering Mexico reported being victims of violence during their transit toward the United States."

"Nearly one-third of the women surveyed had been sexually abused during their journey."

"MSF patients reported that the perpetrators of violence included members of gangs and other criminal organizations, as well as members of the Mexican security forces responsible for their protection."
That was written in 2016, so how did that become the basis of the current crisis in the speech written by Stephen Miller for Trump?

While I'm convinced that problems exist, again, just how did it become the issue of the day in the last 3 weeks and not in the two previous years?

And if the big concern is about refugees perhaps you could look at this from Doctors without Borders:
Reynosa, Mexico/New York, NY—The United States is deporting people to highly dangerous border cities in Mexico at night, a practice needlessly risking the safety of an already extremely vulnerable group of people, said the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) today.

Newly deported people are a preferred target for kidnapping and violent extortion by criminal groups operating in Mexico. After release from immigration detention, deportees are processed by US Customs and Border Patrol at the McAllen-Hidalgo international bridge in Texas at the border with Mexico. Deportees are received by Mexican authorities and moved to a returnee processing center in Reynosa. Migration processing can take more than three hours, meaning newly deported people find themselves in a location late at night where they are highly vulnerable and visible to criminal groups.

“Dumping people in dangerous cities which they don’t know after dark and putting them at even higher risk for kidnapping and violence, makes the already traumatic process of deportation needlessly more damaging,” said Marcelo Fernandez, head of mission for Mexico and Central America.“ The practice of nighttime deportation by the United States puts people’s lives at risk and must end immediately.”

Over a six-week period in October and early December, MSF documented 1,267 people deported to Reynosa after dark by the US government. Of those, 588 were deported after 8:00 pm. According to official figures, homicide rates in Reynosa have increased exponentially in the past two years, with attacks commonly attributed to conflicts between organized criminal groups. The violence is widespread, affecting both the local population and people on the move.

Desperate
DESPERATE JOURNEY: FLEEING INVISIBLE WARS IN CENTRAL AMERICA
READ MORE
MSF has repeatedly brought the risks of nighttime deportations to the attention of the US government, but the situation has not changed.

Humanitarian service providers, including MSF staff members that travel to and provide medical and psychosocial services at the border, are also exposed to a largely preventable risk when moving after dark.

Many returnees processed in Reynosa are not from the local area and must be transported to other parts of the country. Onward travel requires armed escort from state police. However, due to a recent armed attack against police escorting a returnee bus and other safety risks of traveling at night, returnees who arrive after dark are not permitted to continue their travel and must be taken to a local shelter run by the Catholic Sisters of the Order of Guadalupe, until it is safe to continue their journey.

These night movements put returnees at risk, as well as the people who are transporting them and taking care of them in shelters and clinics. Forcing all returnees to spend the night in the shelter also strains the resources of service providers and furthers the stress and anxiety of those who have been deported.

MSF is only able to provide limited services to its patients who arrive late at night and are transferred immediately to a shelter. Since October, two MSF patients attempted suicide shortly following their deportation. Without time and a safe place to provide comprehensive psychosocial assessments and treatment, there is considerable risk that other returnees with significant mental health needs will not receive the medical care they require.

“The US has a responsibility to ensure that the movement and deportation of people is done safely and causes no additional harm to deportees,” said Fernandez.

You said....

I did not find anything directly referring to rapes and refugees in Mexico


I found something

I did not find anything directly referring to rapes and refugees in Mexico

Gotcha Pete, that was years ago so pay no attention to that. Let’s focus on the little boy Trump killed at the border instead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said....



I found something

Thanks for finding that

Gotcha Pete, that was years ago so pay no attention to that. Let’s focus on the little boy Trump killed at the border instead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you think it's important

Show me the facts that say it's not a crisis. You can say that all day long. But where are those facts? I've seen a few families on TV who lost family members, we all know gangs are crossing over, we all know that SOME drugs are crossing over, we all know that illegals are a huge drain on our economy, and now we appear to know that the people who attempt to cross illegally, are subjected to terrible violence.

Are you saying that's not what's happening? Or do you concede that's happening, but not worthy of the word crisis? because if Trump says crisis and you say problem, that's just semantics. It's not on par with nuclear war. But it's worse than a paper cut.

It wouldn't matter if I posted link after link to articles with "real" statistics and the truth about immigration, you have your red hat tightly buttoned on your head, the blinders are on and ear plugs firmly affixed to keep anything from distracting you from staying the course. But feel free to google and take some time reading.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/research/report-forced-flee-central-americas-northern-triangle

"Sixty-eight point three percent of the migrant and refugee populations entering Mexico reported being victims of violence during their transit toward the United States."

"Nearly one-third of the women surveyed had been sexually abused during their journey."

"MSF patients reported that the perpetrators of violence included members of gangs and other criminal organizations, as well as members of the Mexican security forces responsible for their protection."

"Sixty percent of the 166 people treated for sexual violence were raped, and 40 percent were exposed to sexual assault and other types of humiliation, including forced nudity."

STOP MANUFACTURING THINGS!!

Looks like Mexico has a real problem on their hands, they should get busy and address it.

And if the big concern is about refugees perhaps you could look at this from Doctors without Borders:
Reynosa, Mexico/New York, NY—The United States is deporting people to highly dangerous border cities in Mexico at night, a practice needlessly risking the safety of an already extremely vulnerable group of people, said the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) today.

Newly deported people are a preferred target for kidnapping and violent extortion by criminal groups operating in Mexico. After release from immigration detention, deportees are processed by US Customs and Border Patrol at the McAllen-Hidalgo international bridge in Texas at the border with Mexico. Deportees are received by Mexican authorities and moved to a returnee processing center in Reynosa. Migration processing can take more than three hours, meaning newly deported people find themselves in a location late at night where they are highly vulnerable and visible to criminal groups.

“Dumping people in dangerous cities which they don’t know after dark and putting them at even higher risk for kidnapping and violence, makes the already traumatic process of deportation needlessly more damaging,” said Marcelo Fernandez, head of mission for Mexico and Central America.“ The practice of nighttime deportation by the United States puts people’s lives at risk and must end immediately.”

Over a six-week period in October and early December, MSF documented 1,267 people deported to Reynosa after dark by the US government. Of those, 588 were deported after 8:00 pm. According to official figures, homicide rates in Reynosa have increased exponentially in the past two years, with attacks commonly attributed to conflicts between organized criminal groups. The violence is widespread, affecting both the local population and people on the move.

Desperate
DESPERATE JOURNEY: FLEEING INVISIBLE WARS IN CENTRAL AMERICA
READ MORE
MSF has repeatedly brought the risks of nighttime deportations to the attention of the US government, but the situation has not changed.

Humanitarian service providers, including MSF staff members that travel to and provide medical and psychosocial services at the border, are also exposed to a largely preventable risk when moving after dark.

Many returnees processed in Reynosa are not from the local area and must be transported to other parts of the country. Onward travel requires armed escort from state police. However, due to a recent armed attack against police escorting a returnee bus and other safety risks of traveling at night, returnees who arrive after dark are not permitted to continue their travel and must be taken to a local shelter run by the Catholic Sisters of the Order of Guadalupe, until it is safe to continue their journey.

These night movements put returnees at risk, as well as the people who are transporting them and taking care of them in shelters and clinics. Forcing all returnees to spend the night in the shelter also strains the resources of service providers and furthers the stress and anxiety of those who have been deported.

MSF is only able to provide limited services to its patients who arrive late at night and are transferred immediately to a shelter. Since October, two MSF patients attempted suicide shortly following their deportation. Without time and a safe place to provide comprehensive psychosocial assessments and treatment, there is considerable risk that other returnees with significant mental health needs will not receive the medical care they require.

“The US has a responsibility to ensure that the movement and deportation of people is done safely and causes no additional harm to deportees,” said Fernandez.

It wouldn't matter if I posted link after link to articles with "real" statistics and the truth about immigration, you have your red hat tightly buttoned on your head, the blinders are on and ear plugs firmly affixed to keep anything from distracting you from staying the course. But feel free to google and take some time reading.

I'm responding to the facts that I see. I have no red hat, not even close. If you have facts that show there's nothing to be worried about, I'll stop worrying.

STOP MANUFACTURING THINGS!!

I wouldn't worry about it, it's old news.

I'm sure these new folks migrating have set rules in place to make sure all that rapey stuff stopped.

I wouldn't worry about it, it's old news.

I'm sure these new folks migrating have set rules in place to make sure all that rapey stuff stopped.

Perhaps that is why they come in caravans, rather than alone.

That was written in 2016, so how did that become the basis of the current crisis in the speech written by Stephen Miller for Trump?

While I'm convinced that problems exist, again, just how did it become the issue of the day in the last 3 weeks and not in the two previous years?

"That was written in 2016, so how did that become the basis of the current crisis in the speech written by Stephen Miller for Trump?"

So when you hear about this level of violence, and Trump says let's help these people...you aren't nearly as concerned with helping them, as you are with proving that Trump doesn't really care. You are concerned with finding a way to bash Trump, not with figuring out a way to stop these people from making this illegal journey which exposes them to such violence. What do you think that says about you?

"While I'm convinced that problems exist, again, just how did it become the issue of the day in the last 3 weeks and not in the two previous years?"

A great and fair question. Is answering that question, much more important than solving the problem? Can we do both at the same time? Let's address the problem, and also ask Trump, and everyone in Congress, why the hell they didn't address this on day one. I agree, that Trump and the GOP have MUCH to answer for, they could have done this 2 years ago, and should have. But what's the benefit, of continuing to ignore it?

I get it Trump is worried about mass rapes so his solution is build a wall so they can’t get to the United States and that will prevent the rapes ... because they will stop trying to get here to be raped along the way ... brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps that is why they come in caravans, rather than alone.

from same article

"An estimated 500,000 people cross into Mexico every year. The majority making up this massive forced migration flow originate from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala"

or 1,370 people per day. 1 at a time??? Must look like ants heading towards a picnic

"That was written in 2016, so how did that become the basis of the current crisis in the speech written by Stephen Miller for Trump?"

So when you hear about this level of violence, and Trump says let's help these people...you aren't nearly as concerned with helping them, as you are with proving that Trump doesn't really care. You are concerned with finding a way to bash Trump, not with figuring out a way to stop these people from making this illegal journey which exposes them to such violence. What do you think that says about you?

"While I'm convinced that problems exist, again, just how did it become the issue of the day in the last 3 weeks and not in the two previous years?"

A great and fair question. Is answering that question, much more important than solving the problem? Can we do both at the same time? Let's address the problem, and also ask Trump, and everyone in Congress, why the hell they didn't address this on day one. I agree, that Trump and the GOP have MUCH to answer for, they could have done this 2 years ago, and should have. But what's the benefit, of continuing to ignore it?
Is anything that Trump is holding the Government hostage for going to change tomorrow if he got his campaign promise fulfilled today?
This crisis should have been dealt with two years ago and did not become a crisis until Coulter and Limbaugh told Trump he was a failure if he did not get a wall. He was going to sign the budgets.
Pass the budgets and then show us some win win negotiation, walking out is a NY BS developer tactic that doesn't work in politics.
I'm not convinced that the Republicans want Trump to win this and it's pretty unlikely that he will get a 100% win.
I think they are looking for an opportunity to send him down the road and wash their hands of him to get the stink off.

I get it Trump is worried about mass rapes so his solution is build a wall so they can’t get to the United States and that will prevent the rapes ... because they will stop trying to get here to be raped along the way ... brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try to follow me here...

If our border is actually secure, they will know they can't get in, so less of them will try to make the trip, so less will get raped.

I agree with you, it's not brilliant, it's too simple to be brilliant.

Is anything that Trump is holding the Government hostage for going to change tomorrow if he got his campaign promise fulfilled today?
This crisis should have been dealt with two years ago and did not become a crisis until Coulter and Limbaugh told Trump he was a failure if he did not get a wall. He was going to sign the budgets.
Pass the budgets and then show us some win win negotiation, walking out is a NY BS developer tactic that doesn't work in politics.
I'm not convinced that the Republicans want Trump to win this and it's pretty unlikely that he will get a 100% win.
I think they are looking for an opportunity to send him down the road and wash their hands of him to get the stink off.

"Is anything that Trump is holding the Government hostage for going to change tomorrow if he got his campaign promise fulfilled today?"

Nope, not tomorrow. But avoiding the issue, doesn't change anything either.

"This crisis should have been dealt with two years ago "

Why 2 years ago? You give Obama a pass for 8 years of doing nothing? I agree Trump should have done it on day one. But it should have been addressed before he ran. Obama also campaigned in 2008 on fixing this, and he didn't, and he caught some heat from democrats for that, as Trump should today.

"Pass the budgets and then show us some win win negotiation"

Nope. Not in this climate. The democrats won't allow him to get a win, unless he has the shutdown as leverage. They'd rather let people continue to suffer, than let him enjoy a win. It's horrible, but it is what it is. If the democrats compromised today, he'd open the government tomorrow. If he opens the government today, they will never agree to the wall. Their hatred of him outweighs their obligations to serve us.

"it's pretty unlikely that he will get a 100% win."

I don't see how he can agree to anything that doesn't include a wall, maybe some addiitons to the existing structure. Who knows.

"I think they are looking for an opportunity to send him down the road and wash their hands of him to get the stink #^&#^&#^&#^&

I don't see much evidence of that, maybe a few legislators who hate him.

Try to follow me here...

If our border is actually secure, they will know they can't get in, so less of them will try to make the trip, so less will get raped.

I agree with you, it's not brilliant, it's too simple to be brilliant.


The wall the fence the minefield none of it’s going to matter people who live in desperate situations are going to continually come to America no matter how hard it is and till the situations in their home countries are stable and can put food on the table and they don’t live in fear And until any of that happens they are still going to be coming to try to better themselves in United States ..

You got a love Trump there is no global warming humans didn’t cause it ... but a wall Is going to fix all of Americas immigration problems simple solutions for simple minds
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try to follow me here...

If our border is actually secure, they will know they can't get in, so less of them will try to make the trip, so less will get raped.

I agree with you, it's not brilliant, it's too simple to be brilliant.
You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was written in 2016, so how did that become the basis of the current crisis in the speech written by Stephen Miller for Trump?

While I'm convinced that problems exist, again, just how did it become the issue of the day in the last 3 weeks and not in the two previous years?

According to the date listed at the top of the article, it was written in May 2017. When it was finally disseminated into a large enough population of politicians, bureaucrats, President, "important" people and the general population, it wouldn't have become persuasive and well known very much before the mid terms.

Did you know about this article in 2016 (not possible), or 2017 (half of which was gone by the time it was written) or in 2018?

Nope. Not in this climate. The democrats won't allow him to get a win, unless he has the shutdown as leverage. They'd rather let people continue to suffer, than let him enjoy a win. It's horrible, but it is what it is. If the democrats compromised today, he'd open the government tomorrow. If he opens the government today, they will never agree to the wall. Their hatred of him outweighs their obligations to serve us.

I guess Obama should have held the government hostage, apparently that is how you think our political system works.

I have yet to see anything that comes close to an explanation of what they plan to do from this administration.
Here is the previous administration's proposal
I'll gladly look at Trump's but I don't think it exists

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/immigration_blueprint.pdf

You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fear of being raped is not a valid reason for seeking asylum under the accords that the US signed. Neither is fear of being murdered, unless their government is mass murdering its citizens or is illegitimately trying to execute the asylum seeker.

The vast majority of illegal migrants are coming here for economic reasons, also which are not legitimate reasons for seeking asylum.

According to the date listed at the top of the article, it was written in May 2017. When it was finally disseminated into a large enough population of politicians, bureaucrats, President, "important" people and the general population, it wouldn't have become persuasive and well known very much before the mid terms.

Did you know about this article in 2016 (not possible), or 2017 (half of which was gone by the time it was written) or in 2018?

You are correct, I misread the footnote
I think it became important when one side was looking for justification to sell this as a humanitarian crisis, but you'd have to ask Jim what the source was for his original claim as the first three words in this thread are: "Doctors Without Borders"

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

this is correct...it is the ILLEGAL entries that are the problem...why is this so hard for stupid liberals to understand?

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you
Read the post I was responding to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

Face: meet egg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fear of being raped is not a valid reason for seeking asylum under the accords that the US signed. Neither is fear of being murdered, unless their government is mass murdering its citizens or is illegitimately trying to execute the asylum seeker.

The vast majority of illegal migrants are coming here for economic reasons, also which are not legitimate reasons for seeking asylum.
This isn’t really true. Fear of being killed or raped by a gang because of your social group certainly could qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you



The federal asylum statute specifically says that anyone who arrives in the United States “whether or not at a designated port of arrival…may apply for asylum.”

Why they bypass the POE from DHS
Office of Inspector General's report dated 9/27/18

DHS was not fully prepared to implement
the Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy
or to deal with some of its after-effects.
Faced with resource limitations and other
challenges, DHS regulated the number of
asylum-seekers entering the country
through ports of entry at the same time that
it encouraged asylum-seekers to come to
the ports. During Zero Tolerance, CBP also
held alien children separated from their
parents for extended periods in facilities
intended solely for short-term detention.
DHS also struggled to identify, track, and
reunify families separated under Zero
Tolerance due to limitations with its
information technology systems, including
a lack of integration between systems.
Finally, DHS provided inconsistent
information to aliens who arrived with
children during Zero Tolerance, which
resulted in some parents not
understanding that they would be
separated from their children, and being
unable to communicate with their children
after separation.

Feel free to read the whole report
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-10/OIG-18-84-Sep18.pdf

Face: meet egg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
To be fair I think he just got a little excited and didn’t read Jim’s post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To be fair I think he just got a little excited and didn’t read Jim’s post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t take it personally Jeff. You are usually right and just missed this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t take it personally Jeff. You are usually right and just missed this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I guess the same goes for you as well. Scroll up, you’re not going to pull a muscle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This isn’t really true. Fear of being killed or raped by a gang because of your social group certainly could qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What does an asylum seeker have to prove?

Those seeking asylum must prove that that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[9] The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum,[10] having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.

Though the first three bases are self-explanatory, persecution due to political opinion and membership in a social group are less clear. Persecution based on political opinion means that the asylum seeker holds political views that his homeland’s government doesn’t tolerate. An asylum seeker must provide evidence that his expressed political views have opposed those of his government. He can achieve this by providing evidence of speaking publicly in opposition to the government, publishing opposition literature, taking part in political activities on an opposing side, or joining an opposition political party.

Persecution due to membership in a social group is even more difficult to define and prove. Judges and asylum officers analyzing social group-based claims play close attention societal perceptions of the group to which the asylum seeker belongs.[11] As such, social group can vary in definition and interpretation. In one case, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined a particular social group as a “a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.”[12] Additionally, the group must be “particular” and “socially distinct.”[13] Examples of social groups that satisfy the United States’ government’s definition include:

· Tribes;

· Ethnic groups;

· Social classes like laborers and labor union leaders; and

· Those persecuted for sexual preference[14]

What does an asylum seeker have to prove?

Those seeking asylum must prove that that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[9] The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum,[10] having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.

Though the first three bases are self-explanatory, persecution due to political opinion and membership in a social group are less clear. Persecution based on political opinion means that the asylum seeker holds political views that his homeland’s government doesn’t tolerate. An asylum seeker must provide evidence that his expressed political views have opposed those of his government. He can achieve this by providing evidence of speaking publicly in opposition to the government, publishing opposition literature, taking part in political activities on an opposing side, or joining an opposition political party.

Persecution due to membership in a social group is even more difficult to define and prove. Judges and asylum officers analyzing social group-based claims play close attention societal perceptions of the group to which the asylum seeker belongs.[11] As such, social group can vary in definition and interpretation. In one case, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined a particular social group as a “a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.”[12] Additionally, the group must be “particular” and “socially distinct.”[13] Examples of social groups that satisfy the United States’ government’s definition include:

· Tribes;

· Ethnic groups;

· Social classes like laborers and labor union leaders; and

· Those persecuted for sexual preference[14]

I want to seek asylum in the 51st state called Liberty

You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and if i ever claimed that mexico had eliminated crime, you would have a point!! but i didn’t, so you don’t.

where was your criticism, when the democrats voted to fund a wall in the last, we all wonder?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This isn’t really true. Fear of being killed or raped by a gang because of your social group certainly could qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Certainly could? No, it is the responsibility of the government in the country where gang rapes and murders occur to solve the problem. National sovereignty requires national responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the US to solve the gang, or rape, or murder problems of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, or any country other than the US. Sovereignty issues is one of the reasons that the UN pact avoided diminishing the normal responsibility of nations to secure the rights of their own people. Not only would it ease a nation's responsibility to protect its people if the alien citizens had to be accepted by another nation because their government didn't do its job, it would force the burden, wanted or not, on other nations to accept the transfer of the economic and social costs of whole populations into their territory

Social group? Are the gangs comprised of a different "social group" than those they prey upon? Even if they were, it would still be the problem of their government to solve. It is the responsibility of a sovereign nation to secure the safety of its citizens. When sovereign nations fail, if they are UN members, the UN assembly can order some method to set them right. In cases of uncontrollable mass genocides, as have occurred in Africa, UN troops can be sent to stop the killing.

The latest UN migration pact, which the US, thankfully, did not sign, would have made it far easier for migrants to cross borders without having to ask for asylum to do so.

I guess the same goes for you as well. Scroll up, you’re not going to pull a muscle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am almost giggling again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and if i ever claimed that mexico had eliminated crime, you would have a point!! but i didn’t, so you don’t.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

where was your criticism, when the democrats voted to fund a wall in the last, we all wonder?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't recall democrats ever voting for Trump's wall. They've voted for various border security bills some of which have contained bits of wall or fence or barricade. Not everything is so black and white like you make it out to be.

Certainly could? No, it is the responsibility of the government in the country where gang rapes and murders occur to solve the problem.
If the government in question is unwilling or unable to provide protection there historically has been the provision for asylum assuming the standards can be met. Trump has changed some of this to make it much more restrictive but I believe challenges to this are still working through the courts. That being said it doesn't look great for the Admin ... "the new credible fear policies are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the immigration laws."

Not to worry!!!! Pompeo Says Era Of 'American Shame Is Over'

What American did he live in where he felt shameful? Or how about another Trump showing how he thinks presidents should act

Trump says China’s leaders are “more honorable” than the Democratic leaders of Congress.

MAGA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not to worry!!!! Pompeo Says Era Of 'American Shame Is Over'

What American did he live in where he felt shameful? Or how about another Trump showing how he thinks presidents should act

Trump says China’s leaders are “more honorable” than the Democratic leaders of Congress.

MAGA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t you remember the former First Lady who was ashamed of our country? Parallel universe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t you remember the former First Lady who was ashamed of our country? Parallel universe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Are you speaking of this statement? That some claim means ashamed?
As true as Trump saying MAGA means he thinks America sucks

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the government in question is unwilling or unable to provide protection there historically has been the provision for asylum assuming the standards can be met.

This sounds like your slick con artistry at work. What do you mean by "can be met"? Are you referring to some verbal manipulation to circumvent protocol text? Either the standards are met by the asylum claimant or they are not. Why would any provisions be necessary if the asylum standards are already met?

If a government is "unwilling" to provide protection from gangs and rapes, then the government is complicit and responsible for the persecution. In that case, asylum is met under the rubric of political persecution. It has to be proven that the government is deliberately not protecting the claimant.

Should the citizens of the South side of Chicago, under UN protocols, be granted asylum into Switzerland because of the persistent threat of gang violence?

Are you speaking of this statement? That some claim means ashamed?
As true as Trump saying MAGA means he thinks America sucks

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess that is what happens when the country is hungry for change...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you speaking of this statement? That some claim means ashamed?
As true as Trump saying MAGA means he thinks America sucks

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite frankly, I honestly don't know what she is trying to say in that sentence. Maybe other sentences in her statement clarifies it. Is she saying that for the first time as an adult she is truthfully proud of her country, not just the perfunctory, obligatory, but insincere show of pride she may have displayed in her adult past? And is so because her country had no hope during her adult past but now has? And that people were not hungry for change in her adult life until Barack was elected? Does she mean by "my country" that place where the special personal concerns of her adult life were for the first time being met? Because, surely there were millions who had already, before her coming of age and all along believed that "my country" gave them hope, and who, before she became an adult, either were hungry for change or didn't want any. Was she trying to tell us that her personal, particular "hope and change" materialized with the election of her husband, but before that the country was hopeless? Is that something the rest of us should applaud her for.

Quite frankly, I honestly don't know what she is trying to say in that sentence. Maybe other sentences in her statement clarifies it. Is she saying that for the first time as an adult she is truthfully proud of her country, not just the perfunctory, obligatory, but insincere show of pride she may have displayed in her adult past? And is so because her country had no hope during her adult past but now has? And that people were not hungry for change in her adult life until Barack was elected? Does she mean by "my country" that place where the special personal concerns of her adult life were for the first time being met? Because, surely there were millions who had already, before her coming of age and all along that "my country" gave them hope, and who, before she became an adult, either were hungry for change or didn't want any. Was she trying to tell us that her personal, particular "hope and change" materialized with the election of her husband? Is that something the rest of us should applaud her for.
Perhaps you try too hard.
I am typically proud of my children, sometimes they disappoint me or themselves and sometimes I am really proud of them. Does that make me ashamed of them?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am sure the cupboard is full of participation trophy’s.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you try too hard.
I am typically proud of my children, sometimes they disappoint me or themselves and sometimes I am really proud of them. Does that make me ashamed of them?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wasn't talking about being ashamed, nor about you and your children. I was talking about the sentence spoken by Michelle Obama which you cited. Are you trying too hard to claim that Ms. Obama was typically proud of her country, even though it held no hope nor desire for change until, for the first time, after Barack was elected, it finally did?

I wasn't talking about being ashamed, nor about you and your children. I was talking about the sentence spoken by Michelle Obama which you cited. Are you trying too hard to claim that Ms. Obama was typically proud of her country, even though it held no hope nor desire for change until, for the first time, after Barack was elected, it finally did?
I just can't turn her statement into ashamed, sounds like you can.

This sounds like your slick con artistry at work. What do you mean by "can be met"? Are you referring to some verbal manipulation to circumvent protocol text? Either the standards are met by the asylum claimant or they are not. Why would any provisions be necessary if the asylum standards are already met?
They still have to meet the individual evidenced requirements obviously.

If a government is "unwilling" to provide protection from gangs and rapes, then the government is complicit and responsible for the persecution. In that case, asylum is met under the rubric of political persecution. It has to be proven that the government is deliberately not protecting the claimant.

Should the citizens of the South side of Chicago, under UN protocols, be granted asylum into Switzerland because of the persistent threat of gang violence?
The citizens of Chicago are under the protection of the Chicago police and the FBI. Most all the gang violence is gang on gang. If the gangs are prosecuting non-gang members or threatening prosecution of non-gang members the police will intervene.

It's an absurd comparison.

Don’t you remember the former First Lady who was ashamed of our country? Parallel universe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is she an a member of The administration?





"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

when did she say she was ashamed


sounds nothing like what you said she said ... not sure why I am not surprised ... it happens a lot around here... they hear one thing from one party and something else from the other .... even when they are spelled out in words .... they we tell us what they meant to say...
fake words are trending in GOP circles

If it was the first time in her adult life she was proud of our country, then I guess it’s up to you to know her emotions prior to her husband being elected. Would you care to share her intent or feelings regarding her country before that famous quote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is she an a member of The administration?





.. even when they are spelled out in words .... they we tell us what they meant to say fake words are trending

Please explain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just can't turn her statement into ashamed, sounds like you can.

Why ask me? I didn't try to do that. But I can see how it could be done. Even by you if you saw it that way. Being proud of a country for finally having hope could imply being ashamed of it during the time when it had none. Are you ashamed of your children when they act despicably?

Why ask me? I didn't try to do that. But I can see how it could be done. Even by you if you saw it that way. Being proud of a country for finally having hope could imply being ashamed of it during the time when it had none. Are you ashamed of your children when they act despicably?
Spin it however your little heart desires
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They still have to meet the individual evidenced requirements obviously.

Then no special "provisions" as you stated are necessary.

The citizens of Chicago are under the protection of the Chicago police and the FBI. Most all the gang violence is gang on gang. If the gangs are prosecuting non-gang members or threatening prosecution of non-gang members the police will intervene.

It's an absurd comparison.

The citizens of the countries south of our border are under the protections of their police and military forces. Neither Chicago's police nor those country's police can stop gang violence, rapes and murders. The solution to local crimes is not amnesty into another country. Nor does the Un protocol say it can be.

Spin it however your little heart desires
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently you can't refute my "spin." Kinda makes the "spin" fairly accurate.

The citizens of the countries south of our border are under the protections of their police and military forces.
Nope
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup